Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="helotaxi" data-source="post: 3699906" data-attributes="member: 550915"><p>With an education in economics, if fully get where economies of scale would factor into the equation for amp production.&nbsp; There&#039;s a reason that OEMs are out there using the same board in tons of different brands of amps with only component tweaks making them different.&nbsp; The problem with this is that if you are trying to sell two different topologies of amp using the same circuit design, which design gets compromised?&nbsp; As a reputable amplifier company (the Soundstream of old was one of the most reputable, IMO) you wouldn&#039;t compromise on either, especially in an era when you could pretty much charge whatever you wanted for an amp and people would pay.&nbsp; From that point of view, it makes no sense to build a Class A/B amps an then trim it to run as a Class A.&nbsp; It results in a design compromise for the &quot;higher end&quot; design.&nbsp; I&#039;m quite sure that the reason that the trimmer pot was populated on the Class A series boards was to allow the QC engineer to optimize the bias for the higher end amp in an attempt to minimize/eliminate any notch distortion and tune it for the actual transistors in the amp rather than designing to specs and then accepting the tolerances of the batch of components used.&nbsp; All the MS series PG amps had the same pair of trimmers, BTW.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="helotaxi, post: 3699906, member: 550915"] With an education in economics, if fully get where economies of scale would factor into the equation for amp production. There's a reason that OEMs are out there using the same board in tons of different brands of amps with only component tweaks making them different. The problem with this is that if you are trying to sell two different topologies of amp using the same circuit design, which design gets compromised? As a reputable amplifier company (the Soundstream of old was one of the most reputable, IMO) you wouldn't compromise on either, especially in an era when you could pretty much charge whatever you wanted for an amp and people would pay. From that point of view, it makes no sense to build a Class A/B amps an then trim it to run as a Class A. It results in a design compromise for the "higher end" design. I'm quite sure that the reason that the trimmer pot was populated on the Class A series boards was to allow the QC engineer to optimize the bias for the higher end amp in an attempt to minimize/eliminate any notch distortion and tune it for the actual transistors in the amp rather than designing to specs and then accepting the tolerances of the batch of components used. All the MS series PG amps had the same pair of trimmers, BTW. [/QUOTE]

Verification