Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal
boldaslove6789 wrote:183 has already been degooped by Shad (of Quinnamps). All the amps measurements are well known as well as the circuit and the parts that were used to make the amp.
?Max wrote:AFAIK #183 has been degooped and the details of its circuit, its layout and the kind of parts used are known here and AFAIK documented in the files section.
Max wrote:Concerning #183 you could perhaps ask Mac Daddy to be so kind to let you analyze the relationships between the signals present at its input and the signals present at its output by using suitable measuring instruments in order to study how precisely #183 processes the signal. And AFAIK #183 has been degooped and the details of its circuit, its layout and the kind of parts used are known here and AFAIK documented in the files section.ayan wrote: If you could kindly point me to a similar resource about 102 or 183
If Mac Daddy should agree, then IMO all else what would be needed is IMO the commitment of someone who's interested or perhaps just curious enough - and so perhaps motivated enough, too - to take the trouble and spend the time and money needed for such a kind of research. Judging based on my own experiences in other fields of science there aren't comfortable and fast roads to scientific results. To some extent perhaps commitment, knowledge and experience can replace some time and/or money, but ÍMO only to some extent.
Concerning #102 you could perhaps ask Brandon to share some more detailed info with you as can be found in the files section here, that you perhaps could use then as a starting point to analyze in a scientific way what kind of tone and feel will be produced by such a kind of circuit, such a kind of layout and the parts used in #102. AFAIR Brandon once posted here, that you're always the first one he calls when he finds something new under the goop. So I think that it's rather probable, that he will share his knowledge concerning #102 with you if you should be interested enough and ask him.
BTW: If some electronic engineer is able to successfully design a circuit and a layout of an amplifier with a certain kind of timbre and feel in mind by applying the results and methods of physics and psychophysics, he will IMO perhaps be able, too, to deduct at least the more important charateristics of the timbre and feel of an amplifier just based on the details of its circuit and its layout and its parts.
By trial and error (what happens to the timbre and feel etc. if you change the OT e.g.) you can IMO of course find out if something changes in the tone and feel of an amplifier when you change some part or some detail of its circuit and/or layout. And by this method you can perhaps at least identify the parts and the details of the circuit and /or layout involved. But knowing if the tone and feel of an amp changes when you change some part is IMO something rather different from understanding why the tone and feel changes in exactly the way it does when changing this part - at least in a scientific sense of why. To know if something changes in the human perception of the tone and feel of an amplifier when e.g. some part is replaced is IMO just the basis for studying why exactly the human perception of its tone and feel changes when e.g. this part is changed - but it's not the same.
Cheers,
Max
Gilayan wrote:Tony has an amp which has some unique characteristics that most of us find interesting and desirable. He has made himself available to performs tests to try to unveil why his amp it sounds like it sounds. If you could kindly point me to a similar resource about 102 or 183, I would be very grateful, maybe you know something I don't about that.
Thanks,
Gil
Max wrote:#102: http://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12873ayan wrote:I'd be curious as to how we would go about doing that considering that, as far as I know, we have no access to either 102 or 183.
#183: http://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13095
Tony's amp (at least as far as I understand Tony's posts concerning this): #102 + all the changes and mods he reported here.
And AFAIK at least some members here have access to #183.
And AFAIK the results and methods of physics and psychophysics are publicly accessible.
Cheers,
Max
) I will PM you all the info..I agree. I would hope it would be an objective approach to determining the source of the feedback in Tony's amp.ayan wrote:With all due respect to everyone here, I think the philosophical questions posed here will be difficult to answer and there will never be an answer that satisfies everyone. For me, the question about why Tony's "feedback city" amp is capable of feeding back/sustaining so easily, on the clean channel, without PAB on, and at relatively manageable volumes is much more of a tangible and objective thing to address. Maybe Tony just stumbled on that, but I think the idea is to try tro trace his footsteps if we can pull that off.
Gil
