Nobody said you have to be among the first ones to try, just wait and see the comments of the brave ones hehe
If anyone wants to address the issue of bass and details resolution to its max, there's no other way than to go complex. How someone deal with such high amount of parts in their interactive relation, that's another question.
Stay tuned, regards L.C.
If anyone wants to address the issue of bass and details resolution to its max, there's no other way than to go complex. How someone deal with such high amount of parts in their interactive relation, that's another question.
Stay tuned, regards L.C.
LC, how do you usually make your developments for example creating this v1.4?
I mean "just" by ear, or sim/measurements + listening?
Do you have some electrical form where you could "catch" the quality, is for example the v1.4 better
in square waves, slew rate, capacitive load, etc or the improvement cannot be measured like this?
I mean "just" by ear, or sim/measurements + listening?
Do you have some electrical form where you could "catch" the quality, is for example the v1.4 better
in square waves, slew rate, capacitive load, etc or the improvement cannot be measured like this?
Three months of R&D for the First One v1.4, tons of measurements, HF compensations calibrations, sine wave, square wave, THD, IMD, HF loading, no input GND stability (+IN as one wire antena modulated with 3 MHz/10 Vrms), clipping behaviour, slew rate, complex loading, bias stability, offset stability, powering-up output conditions, etc. etc. But none of named measurements will tell you anything about the sound quality, they'll just show how an amp behaves in normal/extreme conditions, that's it.
All together v1.4 will take me 6 months counting from the first step to finish product available for the market. To my expectations v1.4 is mainly intended to be OEM product since few studios and companies expressed willingness to put the modules in their equipment.
I'll be humble and ask: better measurements meaning better sound quality? 
Of course if it measures better than the previous version means we can expect better sq, but how will this reflect in musical signal presentation in general or in details, hard to say. We normally strive for better numbers when measure, but it is always the whole package: topology, layout, parts, ... included in the formula.
Of course if it measures better than the previous version means we can expect better sq, but how will this reflect in musical signal presentation in general or in details, hard to say. We normally strive for better numbers when measure, but it is always the whole package: topology, layout, parts, ... included in the formula.
Last edited:
Of course. (All depends of the measurements ;-).I'll be humble and ask: better measurements meaning better sound quality?
At least, if they are properly done, they reveal if a minimal quality is reached.
Slew rate (when correctly done, no input filter in ) gives-me, for example, a good idea of the quality of an amp, if distortions are under what i consider as a threshold for me.
As well as a schematic gives-me an idea of the general character of an amp.
Well, and you know perfectly this, if you can interpret all the measurements together, you can make-you an idea, at least, if an amp is worth a try. Of course, you'll have to listen to it to figure out his exact personality, micro dynamic, fluidity, details reproduction, listening fatigue etc...
You know how the 'pure objectivists' bores-me. No reason to fall in an opposite excess.
To resume, if an amp with good measurements will not always be the best one, the best one will always measure well.
Do-you have, suddenly, something to hide ? Did you pass the dark side of the force ?
That could not agree more. Ideally measurements should represent wire with a gain, to which all designers ideas desires, sort of holy grale of linear amplification, also my goal too. In practice it's not so easy to choose correct combination of topology, complexity and parts to result in and come close to wire with a gain. Sometimes I feel I'm involved in a mission of constant search of something hopeless. Still, results as a steps in between are there and can be evaluated at any time.
Definitely we are playing with electrons all the time, that's the fact, if that's on the dark side, hard to say. I can only say I monitor everything appearing around and try not just to take what's served on the plate. First One is evolving, some good features advancing to the next level, some are added newly, all in a persuit of better sq. Schematic itself is nothing special, it's just well tuned, that's all.
For this, i know that no one can do better.
For the dark side, you know what i mean. Attitude.
Even this, I'm not so sure. Sometimes an amp can compensate some instant dynamic looses in speakers that we can't avoid. The reason why some prefer CFAs ?
Last edited:
Hi Dominic
First One v1.4 will simply be too complex for domestic SMD assembly, take my word and please comment after presentation, would really like to hear your opinion afterwards.
Also there will be some news regarding modules differentiation as follows:
- First One v1.4 S (small - ex. VSSA) - 100 W/4 ohm
- First One v1.4 M (medium) - 200 W/4 ohm
- First One v1.4 L (large) - 400 W/4 ohm
First One release will of course be presented in medium size.
Before official launch, as usually, First One v1.2 is available from the stock.
Stay tuned, regards L.C.
Can you give us the power supply requirements of each module? Just wondering if we can still use the same SMPS.
Best regards,
Fred
