I listened to the A3 until 2:20 AM. I have a new cat and to keep it from destroying the house, I've been sleeping with it in my work room for the past month. It wakes me up at 6:30 in the morning every day and I am absolutely fried right now, so bear with me.
The problem with subjective reports is you either believe in them or not. Depending on your attitude, it's either all true, or all nonsense. So I can't prove anything about what I'm hearing, but only make objective statements about my unreliable subjective perceptions. In other words, I can state factually that I thought I heard something, but have no idea if what I heard is "real" in any factual sense.
To repeat my earlier comments, what I thought I heard at first was that the A3 sounded awful. It had that "organic" quality but seemed very colored. Everything was there, but there was a warm haze over the music and I had to work, mentally, to sort out the pieces. After running it in for a couple of hours, it started to sound really good, and it just kept improving. For whatever reason, by the time I went to bed, everything had snapped into focus. It sounded so nice, I didn't want to stop listening. It all made sense and I didn't feel there was a barrier between me and the music at all by that point.
This could just be my ears adapting. The brief listen I did in the other system reset my frame of reference. I find I am very susceptible to expectations. I think in my mind I was imagining the sonic effect of my crusty old HP power supply. On the other hand, it's not at all inconceivable that both the amp and the power supply were limbering up over the course of the listening session.
I'm more than a little surprised how good it was with the bench supply. I'm very motivated to get working on the official power supply now.
I have often experienced the effect of "settling into the music," where a system seems to improve dramatically after listening to it for a while. I believe this is a psychological effect, and I think it explains a lot of reports of "sound opening up" over the course of a listening session. On the other hand, I can't disprove that there is something technical going on. All I can say is how dramatically my impression of the sound quality of the A3 improved over the course of my listening to it last night.
I was concerned from the very start of this project about bias stability. The diamond buffers in the A1 and A2 stabilize very quickly and the bias barely varies. The A3 bias slowly drifts down over time, but as I mentioned, settles at a constant value in the test rig and doesn't get too high as long as I stay away from the spreader transistor. It has a negative temperature coefficient, i.e., if I heat the spreader the bias drops. So it should not be prone to running away.
I understand now that the proximity of the spreader in the commercial design, and the unvented cabinet, are part of the thermal design. If I have problems, I can experiment with replacing the spreader with a TO-126 device mounted on the chassis floor and connected to the board with short wires. The temperature slope of the whole circuit will depend on the thermal resistance between the output and spreader transistors, evidently. I think it will probably work ok as-is. The aluminum plate gets pretty warm and is in close proximity to the board from underneath.
Overall, I'm impressed. The unknown (presumed negative) impact of the current power supply arrangement is frustrating. This has been a lot of work on the project so far, and I need to regroup and move onto the next phase.