Jordi wrote:

If I build them ... I'm going to use different cases. Man, the one's shown are U-G-L-Y.

To my view the chassis for the full-range Melquiades is not ugly, in fact I do appreciate the design immensely, functionally and cosmetically. That chassis was very much not accident but a result of quite long thoughts process with objectives of better appearance and also with aim to optimize the currents passes… (It of cause might be better implemented if I money to the case-work but it was not my objective to make expensively looking amp. The case cost me around $200 and I feel that the fundamentals of the design are there. If I would be wiling to pay 1500 for the amp case then it will be the very same chassis layout.)

Still, the tastes are deferent and if someone willing to propose a better layout or at least better appearance of the two-stage amp then I very much would like you to propose what you envision. I will most likely not build any more full-range Melquiades – I have no use for a full range amp – but I still would like to expend my mind what might be more interesting for two-stage chassis. Also, if some other would go this direction then they might be benefited with your better case idea.

drdna wrote:

Not that the sound is bad, but my technique must be bad.  Because sometimes during the day the sound will get really particularly bad, even to the point that it sounds like clouds are passing by over the music, if you understand what I mean.

As I understand you are describing the problems with sound that are poorly electricity related.

drdna wrote:

So I am kind of intimidated to build the Melquaides because I think I will probably just blow it up since I don't fully understand the electronics.

drdna wrote:

So when I think about the physical layout of the Melquiades, which I always thought looked quite utlilitarian, I wonder, what was the thinking behind putting the tube sockets and transformers etc. where they are.  I assume it was to minimize problems with the sound being corrupted by electromagnetic fields, but what was the thinking behind the design choices and compromises made?

drdna wrote:

… are you going to update the schematic to reflect the corrections?

Actually there is not a lot to update there, unless you asked for a simplified version that I described earlier. The very few values the might be slightly adjusted be very simply offset during the calibration of the amp what it is done. I have another 3.3 version with changed indictor in the driver stage (with is not a big deal to begin with) but I have no good PDF rendering utility. Most PDF driver, inching the Adobe drivers, corrupt the images when they render Enterprise Visio files. I remember two years ago when I made the published version I went over a dose driver until I found a good on. I do not remember what it was…. Anyhow, I will find something and will update it soon on later…