I understand the nerdfactor very well, after all I am one, and the amp, could prabably be even better with some tweaks here and there, but the thing is, it is already very very good, so why bother ??
If you end up "only" getting an amp that is better on paper and sonicly inferior, then what has been gained ??
By all means I love improvements, but I just think it is the wrong way to do things, build it and then start tweaking it..If we just tweak it before we build it we cannot know if it is better..
the converse is that engineers are trained to use their knowledge of the state of the art to be able to reliably design circuits and choose parts to achieve some performance goal - did the original designer do any more than select the cheapest output Q that can handle the power - or do yau have evidence that they are carefully "voiced" by some audiophile "guru"?
taking measurable accuracy of signal amplification as a goal, and available parts suitable for the circuit topology - changing to 10x faster, flat hfe output Q and even faster, smaller driver Q would enable >10x less audio frequency distortion in the given circuit with "safe" adjustment of the compensation
there is little point in claiming you must listen to everything 1st before trying what engineering principles suggest gives better measurable performance - unless you propose to go through the 100's of transistor model # that would "work" in the circuit topology with careful subjective listening evaluation between all pairings?
Edited by jcx - 11/17/10 at 7:00am