![[-]](https://theultimatetone.com/images/collapse.png "[-]")
I'd like to take a moment to discuss what is very commonly, and again here, is the thousand pound gorilla on the basketball court, the boundaries between Art and Science, or more exactly the scaling, not of amplifiers, but of data and design considerations. The way I see it the only realm where actual "proofs" exist (or should) is in pure Mathematics. This is because at it's most fundamental Mathematics is an abstract construct where variables are commonly eliminated, the "Black Box" realm if you will. This is exactly the source of the extreme precision possible in Mathematics.
Only slightly removed from Pure Math, is Science, because in actual practice it is indeed possible to remove or ignore as many variables as humanly possible to get precise results, or extremely close to a "proof". This is where the Sigma scale comes into play such as the highly desirable 5 Sigma for extreme statistical probability. Next comes Engineering, and please notice that in this progression and hierarchy all employ Mathematics because being an abstract construct Mathematics has Universality and consistency as well as precision when used under strict conditions of Logic and is careful to avoid an invalid conclusion no matter how precise one's mathematics is if the axiom or premise is faulty, even nonsensical.
In Engineering abstractions are reduced in importance in favor of what works in real world conditions where all variables cannot be controlled, and sometimes, even considered for various reasons, not the least of which is the "at odds" conditions where extreme simplicity is desired but assuming such simplicity is in conflict with inherent, and often badly understood real world conditions, The deeper we go the more room for complexity is revealed, so Engineers must include redundancy and fault tolerances to create designs that actually function under varying condition.
Since this is a guitar and HiFi forum, please allow me to use examples that fit in the form of pickups and speakers. An electromagnetic sensor like a guitar pickup in it's simplest form is "merely" a coil of wire around a magnet. So why, given such apparent simplicity, do no two PAF clones sound the same? One reason is that "wire", "coils" and "magnets" are not specific terms in this context. Slight variations can accumulate and alter the results. More importantly cloning implies what sample is being cloned and in the case of PAF pickups, also non-specific since no two of those are identical especially after decades of exposure to impact and environment. So, at best, "PAF Clone" is only a moderately useful "ballpark" label. Speakers suffer the same varieties and flaws.
In addition, speakers are not standalone devices. The are driven by amplifiers and in wildly varying environments. We can calculate that given a specific output power and speaker efficiency, while also including signal frequency and various resonances, what the resulting Sound Pressure Level should be. However what if the system is stereo and the 2 speakers face each other and are out of phase? and by what degree? or in an anechoic chamber or a vacuum?
This brings us to the last category, Art, which is closely related to Engineering because it's concerns emphasize "what works" in a complex environment above precision in an abstract "Black Box" environment and this complexity with Art includes the wildly varying and often fooled Human perceptions. There is even a term for this in Audio and it is Psychoacoustics since human hearing is not linear, varies with individuals to some degree, and can involve emotional concerns and effects leading to subjective evaluation.
An acoustic guitar is just a wooden box with strings attached under tension, but not only is there variations in types of woods, geometry, types of strings, etc but it is even utterly common that not all Martin D-28s with the exact same string set, under exact same tension, even with the exact same human player, in the same room sound the same. Whether or not you understand the Math, Science, and Engineering if you've ever tried out a dozen D-28s (or any guitar model) to pick "the one that speaks to you" you know this intuitively "in your bones". This is an inherent nature in Analog devices.
I like to sort of reverse a wise old cliche and view it this way -
Thank you again K. O'Connor for your deep understanding and obvious training and experience in electronic audio and your contributions to this thread. It is my understanding that you are long involved in this forum as well as "London Power" in some capacity and are potently involved in Power Scaling and the long list of associates involved in such amplifier concerns are also a litany of the "cream of the crop". Kudos!
However, K. O'Connor, although it is natural given your background and focus that you would view this 0C3 controlled design through the eyes of Power Scaling, that is only a small part of what this design does and how humans perceive it. It's not at all the "Why". Although somewhat modified for guitar amp service, the basic power section design is adapted from Leslie 122/147 design. Mr. Leslie was not at all concerned with power scaling. He began his research for it's design in the 1930s desiring to attempt to reproduce on portable electronic organs the massive and formidably awesome sound of HUGE Pipe and Theater organs. These devices take up cubic yards of space and weigh many tons. The volume and pressure of the air that drives such pipes (basically Helmholtz resonators) is FAR beyond what lifts your car or truck at the shop. Mr. Leslie was not looking to scale down power. If anything he was looking to maximize it.
Leslie was after both power and phase relationships that mimiced the awesome power of such pipe organs at substantially less size, weight and expense. At this point I need to ask, and anyone reading this should ask themselves, have you ever experienced the sound of a multi-ton, multiple cubic yards pipe organ? Then for comparison have you ever heard a Hammond B3, especially with the Bass pedal accessories, through even one Leslie 147? If you have experienced the latter I think you might agree that it does not sound like a mere 30 watts, scaled or not. It sounds more like 100 watts. It sounds utterly massive and also massively pleasant, articulate, but rich and warm as well.
THIS ^^ is what I'm after with this design incorporating the fixed regulation via the 0C3 and it does deliver as you may soon experience for yourself as much as that can come across when not in-the-room but limited by digital reproduction and bandwidth compression... OR grab an 0C3 and build one! I suspect you will be delighted. If you can unlock the mojo with SS devices, it could add to your reputation and wealth. I'm too old for such things. I just love the sound.
Only slightly removed from Pure Math, is Science, because in actual practice it is indeed possible to remove or ignore as many variables as humanly possible to get precise results, or extremely close to a "proof". This is where the Sigma scale comes into play such as the highly desirable 5 Sigma for extreme statistical probability. Next comes Engineering, and please notice that in this progression and hierarchy all employ Mathematics because being an abstract construct Mathematics has Universality and consistency as well as precision when used under strict conditions of Logic and is careful to avoid an invalid conclusion no matter how precise one's mathematics is if the axiom or premise is faulty, even nonsensical.
In Engineering abstractions are reduced in importance in favor of what works in real world conditions where all variables cannot be controlled, and sometimes, even considered for various reasons, not the least of which is the "at odds" conditions where extreme simplicity is desired but assuming such simplicity is in conflict with inherent, and often badly understood real world conditions, The deeper we go the more room for complexity is revealed, so Engineers must include redundancy and fault tolerances to create designs that actually function under varying condition.
Since this is a guitar and HiFi forum, please allow me to use examples that fit in the form of pickups and speakers. An electromagnetic sensor like a guitar pickup in it's simplest form is "merely" a coil of wire around a magnet. So why, given such apparent simplicity, do no two PAF clones sound the same? One reason is that "wire", "coils" and "magnets" are not specific terms in this context. Slight variations can accumulate and alter the results. More importantly cloning implies what sample is being cloned and in the case of PAF pickups, also non-specific since no two of those are identical especially after decades of exposure to impact and environment. So, at best, "PAF Clone" is only a moderately useful "ballpark" label. Speakers suffer the same varieties and flaws.
In addition, speakers are not standalone devices. The are driven by amplifiers and in wildly varying environments. We can calculate that given a specific output power and speaker efficiency, while also including signal frequency and various resonances, what the resulting Sound Pressure Level should be. However what if the system is stereo and the 2 speakers face each other and are out of phase? and by what degree? or in an anechoic chamber or a vacuum?
This brings us to the last category, Art, which is closely related to Engineering because it's concerns emphasize "what works" in a complex environment above precision in an abstract "Black Box" environment and this complexity with Art includes the wildly varying and often fooled Human perceptions. There is even a term for this in Audio and it is Psychoacoustics since human hearing is not linear, varies with individuals to some degree, and can involve emotional concerns and effects leading to subjective evaluation.
An acoustic guitar is just a wooden box with strings attached under tension, but not only is there variations in types of woods, geometry, types of strings, etc but it is even utterly common that not all Martin D-28s with the exact same string set, under exact same tension, even with the exact same human player, in the same room sound the same. Whether or not you understand the Math, Science, and Engineering if you've ever tried out a dozen D-28s (or any guitar model) to pick "the one that speaks to you" you know this intuitively "in your bones". This is an inherent nature in Analog devices.
I like to sort of reverse a wise old cliche and view it this way -
Wise Old Cliche Wrote: If all you have are nails, everything starts looking like a hammer, even wrenches, screwdrivers and rocks
Thank you again K. O'Connor for your deep understanding and obvious training and experience in electronic audio and your contributions to this thread. It is my understanding that you are long involved in this forum as well as "London Power" in some capacity and are potently involved in Power Scaling and the long list of associates involved in such amplifier concerns are also a litany of the "cream of the crop". Kudos!
However, K. O'Connor, although it is natural given your background and focus that you would view this 0C3 controlled design through the eyes of Power Scaling, that is only a small part of what this design does and how humans perceive it. It's not at all the "Why". Although somewhat modified for guitar amp service, the basic power section design is adapted from Leslie 122/147 design. Mr. Leslie was not at all concerned with power scaling. He began his research for it's design in the 1930s desiring to attempt to reproduce on portable electronic organs the massive and formidably awesome sound of HUGE Pipe and Theater organs. These devices take up cubic yards of space and weigh many tons. The volume and pressure of the air that drives such pipes (basically Helmholtz resonators) is FAR beyond what lifts your car or truck at the shop. Mr. Leslie was not looking to scale down power. If anything he was looking to maximize it.
Leslie was after both power and phase relationships that mimiced the awesome power of such pipe organs at substantially less size, weight and expense. At this point I need to ask, and anyone reading this should ask themselves, have you ever experienced the sound of a multi-ton, multiple cubic yards pipe organ? Then for comparison have you ever heard a Hammond B3, especially with the Bass pedal accessories, through even one Leslie 147? If you have experienced the latter I think you might agree that it does not sound like a mere 30 watts, scaled or not. It sounds more like 100 watts. It sounds utterly massive and also massively pleasant, articulate, but rich and warm as well.
THIS ^^ is what I'm after with this design incorporating the fixed regulation via the 0C3 and it does deliver as you may soon experience for yourself as much as that can come across when not in-the-room but limited by digital reproduction and bandwidth compression... OR grab an 0C3 and build one! I suspect you will be delighted. If you can unlock the mojo with SS devices, it could add to your reputation and wealth. I'm too old for such things. I just love the sound.
