Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

Rony,

After reading my post about the undersized core (for the given current) of Lundahl transformers you might be an impression that Lundahl are some kind of second choice. The undersized amorphous Lundahls forum is second chose for an ultimate full-range amp. The amorphous core “dies” in saturation fast therefore it needs a lot of mass-reserved. However it does not look like you are wiling to do a an ultimate full-range SET (whatever it might means, this I do not believe into the notion)

I think the only reasonable judgment would be not “how to make it abstractedly better” but rather “how to make is as good as it necessary for the given application”. Any further “abstract improvements” are compromises. Let me give you some facts. The 200mA amorphous 1627 Lundahl and the Milq at 210V are very moderate settings. However, even at 180mA and 210V and in context of “open bottom” speakers the Milq demonstrated a phenomenal bass. I really do not what to sound like I am trying to solicit people for Melquiades by demeaning Lamm ML2.0 by even with 1627A the Milq domesticated WAY more interesting bass then ML2.0. Do not forget the ML2.0 is not juts a stunning bass performer but it is the ump in context of wish I lend how reproduced bass might sound. Generally the subject of “comparing” the ML2.0’s bass capacity and Milq bass capacity is incredible interesting and I spent a lot of time to research it and experimenting with it. However, there are no audiences for this subject as there are very few people who used ML2.0 with over 100dB sensitive, properly gone, “open bottom” LF sections and who have any remote idea of what Lamm ML2.0 is really cables in bass.

Still, the 200mA of amorphous Lundahl was enough to defeat all ML2’s bass advantages (there are many reason why, and ML2 feedback is one of them). Surely, you will not get out of 200mA amorphous Lundahl a lot of power, think of 12W but you also with your 515G will not drive it deep. Do not forget that power in SETs transformer is a property of frequency and current. If you do not need with your 515G to get anything lower then 30-35Hz then Lundahl 1627A might be exactly what I called  “how to make is as good as it necessary for the given application”.

Do not forget another VERY important thing. Most of the SETs are “feedbacked SET” and they less sensitive for load (they pay some penalties for it by equalizing “quality” again different loads but they do not deliver the best “quality” against the specific load… good luck with that ML3 :-). So, the Melquiades has not feedback and therefore it is hyper-sensitive to the amp load. Those Lundahls have 8 sections of secondary and you will have access to them. They are sections not the idiotic taps that screw up everything 9even if then are implemented “properly”). So, by remapping those Lundahls sections your will be able to tune your 515G drive so precisely that no one “feedbacked SET” could even dream on. However, it might be a problem as well as it is very possible that the best loading for your 515G will not be the best loading for your S2 driver. Generally my expectations would be that with S2 you would need load the output stage at 500R-600R but that 515G with twice higher. If it is not the case then you lucky and enjoy the enjoyable…. If it is the case (you will pick some unnecessary gain with S2 and will loose so necessary gain with 515G) then you might reread my DSET concept… :-)

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site