Quell'ampli è una delle mie più grandi soddisfazioni. Contento che ti piaccia. Sono italiano anche io ma vivo in USA.
Congrats for this amp it seems really a beast.
Tempted to build one... just a few questions (sorry for the OT):
why do you have an AB output stage? would an higher bias current and a lower PSU voltage bring any advantage? I don't need 200W rms, 50W would be ok
easier to find transistor:
use TTC5200/TTA1943 for the drivers and for the final transistors (2sc6145/2sa2223 unfindable)
replacements for unobtainable 2sc4883/2sa1859 ? maybe tta004/ttc004?
Tempted to build one... just a few questions (sorry for the OT):
why do you have an AB output stage? would an higher bias current and a lower PSU voltage bring any advantage? I don't need 200W rms, 50W would be ok
easier to find transistor:
use TTC5200/TTA1943 for the drivers and for the final transistors (2sc6145/2sa2223 unfindable)
replacements for unobtainable 2sc4883/2sa1859 ? maybe tta004/ttc004?
I am interested to see the BOM and pictures of WHA-217 E2 project, can you send details in a PM.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure I can send you, but not in a PM, too much stuff. Send me a PM with your email address, and I will send you the whole WHA-217 E2 folder via WeTransfer.
So your definition of Musicality is non linearity, hence distortion.
Then Thrash Metal must be the highest form of Musical Evolution.
Are we missing something?
The main part of the WOTS concept: the exaggerated self praise and hyperbole is here for us all to read; the purported "technical" aspect is irrelevant compared to that.
In a way, it´s better for you we do NOT listen to it, so all we have is your word.
Which of course is .... ummmm .... "biased" 😉
Congrats, you keep outdoing yourself with dumb posts. Just like the one with sharks.
There’s absolutely no constructive purpose in objectivists submitting their typical criticisms on a thread project such as this. The OP has clearly introdcued his design as targeted to those who are primarily interested in subjective/emotional listening qualities. Anyone else looking for the lowest THD line-stage circuit, need look no further that to some modern IC op-amp, feedback based circuit and you have found your Heaven. As most all other circuit implementations will exhibit greater THD than that. So, if you feel that THD, noise, etc. are the end-all, and be-all of audio circuit design, that’s fine, however, then just move along. Stop trolling those who primarily are presenting, or looking for something else.
Sadly you are right. A lesson I learned in my early years: There is absolutely no point in discussing with religious people like Jehovahs whitness or audiophile "subjectivists".
And still, I think it’s really sad that this sort of argument always derails into insultives.
Bucks, I’m uncertain from which perspective you make your above comment. To make clear, if I’ve not already, I’m neither a pure objectivist nor a pure subjectivist. I believe that objective measurements are important, but should be in the service of the human listening experience, not the reverse. It seems to me that the objective/subjective debate should start with an agreement over what is the ultimate purpose of a home audio playback system. Is it to objectively satisfy a spectrum analyzer readout, or is it to subjectively satisfy human music appreciation? Agreeing on what is the end application gives clarity. After which, the debate largely falls around what defines musical satisfaction for a given person?
However, even among those who may define musical satisfaction strictly according to their emotional reaction/experience to the musical performance, regardless of whether or not the playback sounds like the original live event, their‘s, is not necessarily the worst purpose for a music playback system. While I’m firmly in the camp of, sounds like the original live event, I’d rather live with a colored playback which moves me emotionally, than live with objectively ’accurate’ playback which leaves the music sounding emotionless and uninteresting. I’ve owned many components over the years in this latter category. Just my two-cents worth.
Last edited:
I’m curious as to how close to the sound of the LeGrand you feel that the Tre comes?
Do you prefer one over the other, or are they so close that you feel indifferent in choosing?
I am definitely in the "objective" camp. This does NOT exclude my personal subjective taste. But knowing about the quite limited human capabilites - including my own - I disgust most oft the exaggerated claims from audio non-experts you find so often in these kind of discussions. My personal taste does not matter for any body else on this planet with a different taste, and vice versa I do not give a dime on anyones anecdotal contributions. All in all I share the position of Juan Fahey - who names stupid contributions just stupid contributions - but have given up to participate in useless debates.
Last edited:
Whether the music does sound emotionless or not is not a matter of the reproduction equipment but simply a matter of the performing musicians. In the old days when my ears worked much better than now I could enjoy Jimi Hendrix via a shabby 6 transistor radio. Just my 2c.
Funny thing is, everything, as in EVERYTHING in Audio we enjoy today, even the subjectivists, has been created by the Objectivists, go figure.
Meaning Physicists, Engineers, Technicians and the like.
Using tools such as Physics Laws and Mathematics.
E-VE-RY-THING: tubes, transistors, resistors, capacitors, loudspeakers, transformers, pickups, cables, you-name-it.
Without which we wouldn´t even be talking about Audio.
Tell me ONE Audio advance created by Subjectivists.
If it were for them, we would still be arguing skin drums, which would be better, those made out of animals killed during the Solar Solstice or at the end of each Lunar Month.
No need to go any further than this very thread, what field do you think did 6H30 and FQPF3N25 designers and makers belong to?
PRAY they are objectivists, or no 2 tubes or transistors would be the same, and that ... if they worked at all.
1) Having a personal “taste” in the sound would seem to exclude you from the objective camp.
2) I’m unclear as to exactly which non-expert exaggerated claims you are refering.
3) Again, personal taste, yours, or anybody else’s, excludes you from being an objectivist.
4) How do you pre-judge whether, or not, someone else’s anecdotal report coincidently points the way to a better satisfaction of your own personal taste?
5) You think that a contribution is necessarily stupid simply because it is based around design goals which differ from your own?
Last edited:
There are many professional engineers in commercial audio who place the sound of a circuit above maximizing it’s specifications. Nelson Pass quickly comes to mind, just to name one. The issue is not subjectivist magic versus objectivist science. Audio systems are obviously physical devices, and so, behave according to physical laws. The issue, instead, is how best to exploit/leverage those laws to achieve the end goal of maximizing a particular human experience. I can’t speak for others, but I can tell you that I personnally would like nothing better than to have published specifications which accurately serve as a proxy for the subjective listening experience. It would make shopping for system components risk free. I often find that, with people who proudly consider themselves as pure objectivists, they hold the presumption the the specification sheet necessarily already serves as such an accurate proxy. Except, it’s not measurement instruments that determine the truth of that, it‘s human beings, and many human beings disagree that specification sheets currently do that.
Last edited:
No. Being an objectivist excludes me from having an own taste?! Really? As an objectivist I do the numbers and compare them to others. A basic concept of the scientific approach is measurabiltiy that enables each person to reproduce and validate any claim - coming to the same result. So I do not claim anything "sounds better" based on my personal subjective experience with swapping components of the audio reproduction chain etc. I do not see the magic in Audio - but I hear it in the music. This is the field where my education as a physicist ends - and where adventure begins. And yes - these well known Gurus like John Curl and Joe Pass have a substantial fanbase - but I am not a member therin, tbh. My teachers were Baxandall, Tietze-Schenk, Bob Pease, Bob Cordell, Robert Moog, Douglas Self, Bruno Putzey....
Last edited: