|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
01-15-2025
|
Those who follow my site know that since September, I have
lived in a strange stage, questioning many things in audio due to my exposure
to what I call AmpX topology. I have 3 audio friends with whom I shared one of
the versions of AmpX and they observed the same effect.
Yesterday, I visited one of them who used one of the versions
of AmpX on one of his channels. Honestly, I heard something that I had never heard
from the entire audio before. I am still thinking about what it was and probably
will record a video clip about it. All of it made me very willing to convert my
Macondo from Milq to AmpX.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
01-15-2025
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
01-16-2025
|
Lots of nice talk about the listening experience(s), Romy, but you still say you want to continue to analyse and understand what's going on. Are you trying other quasi-complementary amps for comparisons? When I shopped for powerful amps I found that claimed/highlighted technology (such as "fully balanced", or "output buffer", or "Class A", on and on) could be "the same" with different sonic results as I used given amps. Here I am still talking about sound even as you fuzz-up the importance of sound in this case. I am not at all clear about how "sound gets bypassed" when listening to Music. Though there were times I got "It" while listening in my car, it has not happened often. What changes if the electro-mechanical delivery system stays the same? Is It reliably repeatable with AmpX? Will AmpX own-sound wear thin over time? For people who want to run out and try quasi-complimentary amps, I think Plinius was one of that ilk that I passed on during my search for big amps.
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
01-16-2025
|
We presume that in order to get "It” we should hear specific
sounds. If the sound by a playback is just a decoded surrogate non-live surrogate
sound, then it is possible that in order to get "It” we need not the
original sounds but very specifically structured surrogates that are internally
referenced to the original sounds. Soft of an Audio Trojan Horse.
A local friend of my who is familiar with AmpX result sent
me a text when he said that my definition of AmpX as “I can experience more with
hearing more” is spot on. He also confirmed that anybody who do not know what I
am dealing with would watch the video above, they will presume that I am a hallucinating
idiot.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
01-16-2025
|
Well, I do not understand what's going on here, but that's just a starting point. Still, I suppose you are on to "something", based on personal experience, also things we have already written about on these pages. If we are looking for "something that remains when sound gets bypassed", and it is not Orgone, perhaps it has something to do with time, or one might say, timing. Human awareness of the timing of sounds is incredibly sensitive and telling, based on what we know about it, and there is still alot to learn. I admit that I did conjure a certain historical amp designer/seller on LSD... This guy once claimed he could make an amplifier to sound however he (or anyone else) wanted. How droll that I never heard anything good from his amps, albeit this actually proves nothing about his claims... Back to AmpX, "perfect timing" is something repeatable that might or might not be "audible" in the sense that we usually mean it. Hmmm...
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
01-18-2025
|
Okay, I decided bite a bullet and go to an experiment. I begin to plan how to build a version of AmpX. It will be an amplifier but it will be based upon different concept. The concept is that amplified signal is not a direct reflection of the source, but a mechanism of reinstating a new reality using the source as an inspiration. It will be probably 50 watt amplifier. I really would like to hear how it sound because it will be a huge experiment. From my current AmpX I will be sleeping a lot of things that I feel is not responsible for X Factor and will be keeping only very limited number of characteristics that I feel are responsible for X Factor. If new amplifier still has all performance characteristics of my current AmpX then it would be a very good methodological proof that the selected characteristics are in fact the effective to achieve the X Factor.
If this first experiment will be successful, then next experiment will be building another version which strip even more characteristics. So, is the versions that I built right now will be AmpX V1. If it is all green, then it will be AmpX V2 which will be even less accents to sound but more accent to X Factor.
My final destination would be AmpX V3, which will be a universal amp, this absolutely irrelevant power, and this power will be work explicitly by X Factor. When I say universal, I mean that the politically at that point I should have a knowledge how X Factor might or might not be transparent across amplification stages. And if I have this knowledge then it might be literally a universal topology, which would allowed an amplifier to be 3 Watts or 300 watts, in class AB or in pure class A. This is a final destination.
I am beginning to correct the parts for AmpX V1. I feel it will be a long threat...
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
01-19-2025
|
Stay tuned, boys and girls... Meanwhile, Romy, are you planning to make this amp go FR, top to bottom? If this is the case, it will be very interesting to see how the amp part of the amp deals with a stack of drivers with X/Os. Well, it will be interesting for me, anyway, since I am still not understanding how that does/will not matter as the electrical energy is transformed "back into sound".
Bon Voyage!
Paul S
|
|