Really big ego, this guy
With loudspeakers that are better than amplifiers.....................
Hi Lawrence
I contacted you regarding your inquiry on solid state part of the forum, as I wanted to help you out in a simple way getting ready made modules; expecting our debate will be on PM mostly until you have something concrete to talk about, meaning owning some of my gear. Most debate here is related to concrete module installations and impressions, not so much about theory of operation or meaningless posts or even trolling, like happens many times on the forum. So for the start please read this year's posts about First One v1.4, which is current version and only relevant for you to consider. Some opinions about latest version collected here, other opinions here are mostly mine, very conservatively given, but be sure I test and compare a lot, all of the time. I heard First One in many different very quality systems, so please don't prejudice us as fools knowing nothing.
Please try to stay on calm level of debate as we all are used to here, nevertheless you're kindly invited to try First One amp in a way like all others did.
Thanks.
Regards, L.C.
calling me out as an egoistic person?
wow name calling ...wow
Really big ego, this guy
With loudspeakers that are better than amplifiers.....................
wow name calling ...wow
Quote:
I contacted you regarding your inquiry on solid state part of the forum, as I wanted to help you out in a simple way getting ready made modules
no this is soliciting sir...and i believe against the rules!
I think i am going to go back to my parts of town if you wil and continue on what Im doing you obviously have it all covered in the reviewing of your stuff LOL...and its all perfect no further testing needed ...haha
carry on....see ya!!
A lot has been done to improve SQ, 35 semiconductors balanced on v1.4, diametrically opposite to previous version. Looking forward to see your upgrade and of course listening impressions.Hi Andrej,
I have received the 1.4 modules
They look nice, compared to the 1.2 the input/driver stage looks completely different, on the FO 1.2 there are 5 transistors and on the 1.4 about 25.
Time to install them
This amp is wonderful: timbral accuracy; rythmical precision; what I would term "esprit de nonchalance" meaning no matter what you throw at it, it will reproduce without a sweat.
The negative criticisms one can formulate are not the amplifiers fault:
1) You may want to upgrade the rest of your system...in fact I am upgrading my source to cope with the quality.
2) It is unforgiving with poor recordings.
3) You may want to buy more.
Cheers,
M.
The new amp is great, only a lot of your old records now sound bad
Haven't we all been there at some stage?
The new amp is great, only a lot of your old records now sound bad
Haven't we all been there at some stage?
Correct, but the game is on completely different level (read higher), now speakers show so much more, so the source becomes most important part. It reads like usual chain of events in audio, true, but as I said on much higher level.
By "bad old" recordings I tend to think about digital from the eighties and nineties, or DG analog to digital...recordings from the 50's and 60's, with decent transfers to digital, sound very involving. The less filtering, the better...particularly, private transfers from vinyl to digital downloaded from the net are very OK.
The recording engineers are now (21th century) more aware, or have better instruments...or the producers let them do their job without interfering...I am talking here about classical music...
I discovered that some DDD CDs that sounded sterile before, have gained a lot of ampler soundstage, have more frequency extension, shows more "playing noises" (like plucking strings, moving chairs, falling objects...etc) which means lower noise floor and better detail retrieval. Strings attacks particularly are very convincing. As I said before, even with massive and complex orchestral passages, the amp maintain composure, while rendering a textured reproduction of the different sections' timbres.
Differences between recording qualities are perceived as extreme.
The guys who have yet not heard the F.O. V1.4 can make jokes all day long...until they hear it.
This amp is on the neutral side of neutrality and on the transparent side of transparency, hehe.
Cheers,
M.
The recording engineers are now (21th century) more aware, or have better instruments...or the producers let them do their job without interfering...I am talking here about classical music...
I discovered that some DDD CDs that sounded sterile before, have gained a lot of ampler soundstage, have more frequency extension, shows more "playing noises" (like plucking strings, moving chairs, falling objects...etc) which means lower noise floor and better detail retrieval. Strings attacks particularly are very convincing. As I said before, even with massive and complex orchestral passages, the amp maintain composure, while rendering a textured reproduction of the different sections' timbres.
Differences between recording qualities are perceived as extreme.
The guys who have yet not heard the F.O. V1.4 can make jokes all day long...until they hear it.
This amp is on the neutral side of neutrality and on the transparent side of transparency, hehe.
Cheers,
M.
Although "off topic" I feel that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the quality of recordings, although I agree that early (classical music CDs are, generally, the worst technically).
When the major companies 'went digital' they cut-back on recording new performances and diverted the money saved into transferring the analog back-catalogue to CD. They often used small specialist one-man operations. I visited a few of these. They tended to use a 1/4" two track Revox (usually an a77, unserviced!!) . The one I saw used badly placed Rogers domestic speakers, Quad 303 and a Sony 8 slide eq unit to Sony 2 track. This was used to digitalise large scale orchestral music from 2 track analogue. Naturally the product was not technically good! However this 'method' was used to achieve a large catalogue of CD based music in a short time period. No wonder the more serious listener was inclined to be unhappy.
I could say that they made a pig's ear from a silk purse!! I could also say a lot more on this subject...but this is not the place. So I will just say that the problems were almost always on the post-production side of the recording process and such errors cannot be overcome by any replay amplifier and are often made worse by a good amplifier.
When the major companies 'went digital' they cut-back on recording new performances and diverted the money saved into transferring the analog back-catalogue to CD. They often used small specialist one-man operations. I visited a few of these. They tended to use a 1/4" two track Revox (usually an a77, unserviced!!) . The one I saw used badly placed Rogers domestic speakers, Quad 303 and a Sony 8 slide eq unit to Sony 2 track. This was used to digitalise large scale orchestral music from 2 track analogue. Naturally the product was not technically good! However this 'method' was used to achieve a large catalogue of CD based music in a short time period. No wonder the more serious listener was inclined to be unhappy.
I could say that they made a pig's ear from a silk purse!! I could also say a lot more on this subject...but this is not the place. So I will just say that the problems were almost always on the post-production side of the recording process and such errors cannot be overcome by any replay amplifier and are often made worse by a good amplifier.
Last edited:
Correct, but the game is on completely different level (read higher), now speakers show so much more, so the source becomes most important part. It reads like usual chain of events in audio, true, but as I said on much higher level.
Dunno. As it happens i am in a similar situation at present: a long time favourite class A SS amp vs a newly built DHT tube wonder.
The tube amp is amazing with first rate source material - dynamics, speed, microdetail, goosebumps, the works. The SS amp otoh just plays music, consistently and convincingly. It plays 80% of my collection in a much more satisfying and musical manner but fails to reach the ultimate excitement the tube amp provides with impeccable sources.
So which is the better amp? To me the answer is obvious: the one that manages to make more music enjoyable.
Not off-topic at all since it concerns source signals our amps amplify. Sh.. in sh.. out, cannot be different, good amplifiers acts like a microscopes, enabling sh.. presenting itself in even more realistic form. If it's bad let it be bad to the last detail, so we can explore sh.. in a forensic way, even if it smells unbearably, we'll find out the truth, figuratively speaking.