Home » Audio » Thermionic Emissions » simplifying the Guinevere
simplifying the Guinevere [message #9235] Wed, 05 October 2005 07:09 Go to next message
MQracing is currently offline  MQracing
Messages: 220
Registered: May 2009
Master
Hi. Downloaded the G schematic and kept thinking to myself that it be really trick with the use of some ac signal chokes... say in place of the 1meg output resistor. And if one wanted to build a simpler sand free version a dc carrying plate choke ought to work on top of the 5687 very well and simplify things at the same time. I do like the simplicity of the diodes on the bottom of the cathode.... though even here an ac signal choke might work.

overall a neat design.... yet even with it's as drawn simplicity... it could loan itself to further experimentation.


cheers,

msl



Re: simplifying the Guinevere [message #9236 is a reply to message #9235] Wed, 05 October 2005 08:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Like exactly how would those changes be implemented? I think it would be a great experience to compare the two different ways of implementing the circuit.

Re: simplifying the Guinevere [message #9237 is a reply to message #9236] Wed, 05 October 2005 13:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Damir is currently offline  Damir
Messages: 1005
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
Wayne said while ago (if I remember correctly) that his version would be with anode choke in the place of CCS, output from 5687 anode. The output resistance is rp in parallel with anode load (choke AC impedance), or simplified (if we assume large L / AC impedance on all "frequencies of interest"), about rp~2,3 kOhms.
Large resistor parallel to the output is mostly for "cap discharge path" and some load if we use the preamp without amp load.

Re: simplifying the Guinevere [message #9238 is a reply to message #9235] Wed, 05 October 2005 14:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PakProtector is currently offline  PakProtector
Messages: 935
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
Simplifying is usually a good thing. I would like to have your thoughts on the results of more than an order of magnitude increase in its output Z your plate load choke modification would cause.

Experimentation is also good. Any curcuit could loan itself to further experimentation, it is in large part why we're here.

What property or performance parameter were you improving by changing the cathode load from a low Z LED to a hi-Z choke? Also, what would the DCR of this choke be? and a final follow up, how would said parameter change?
cheers,
Douglas

Re: simplifying the Guinevere [message #9239 is a reply to message #9236] Wed, 05 October 2005 18:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MQracing is currently offline  MQracing
Messages: 220
Registered: May 2009
Master
Hello MB:

I'm not 100% sure I understand your question. let me give it a shot.

If your asking how difficult would it be to implement say a plate choke on top of the anode of the 5687... answer is (imo) simpler and moreso straightforward than the CCS. Just two wires to hook up. You would need to double check your voltage drop across the plate choke and make sure you get the target plate volts on the anode.

re: output impedances see Damir's response. What you would want to aim toward is a minimum of 100 henries imo.

all very doable and straightforward. Some folks (though not all) favor the sonics of choke loading the plate vis-a-vis a CCS. On paper the CCS is technically a better solution. It offers much, much higher AC impedance than a plate choke. So... it one of those subjective areas... try both and see which sounds better to you.

a high L choke can be substituted for the output resistor.... the claimed advantage here is that the choke offers relatively high AC impedance and less dc resistance than the resistor. Here you want to spec in a very large L for the AC choke. Say a thousand henries min.
Again... by the numbers alone the resistor offers a greater ac impedance (1 meg in this case)... but it also has 1 meg of dc resistance. A 1000 henry AC choke would have approx 125,000 ohms of impedance at 20 hertz... while only having say a thousand to four or five thousand ohms of dc resistance....

again, I think it's another of the instances of you've got to try it for yourself and "hear out" any differences and which sounds better.

all of my suggestions\ideas were offered only as alternate ideas\strategies. the guinevere looks pretty neat as drawn up and is even as drawn up still a doable, practical, rather straightforward line level amp.

cheers,

msl



Re: simplifying the Guinevere [message #9240 is a reply to message #9239] Wed, 05 October 2005 19:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
The point originally was to use the Guinevere as a platform for experimentation. Douglas offered several iterations of the original circuit so I am sure he is sympathetic with any and all possibilities. The discussion happening is great stuff. Thanks much and I am looking forward to more of the same.

Re: simplifying the Guinevere [message #9241 is a reply to message #9240] Wed, 05 October 2005 23:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Damir is currently offline  Damir
Messages: 1005
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
Mu-output in CCS case has low impedance and "insulate" tube from the load. Anode choke version is not really suitable for "driving" amps with low input impedance. We now have impedance of the choke in parallel with amp input impedance like the load for 5687 anode.
But, for the higher load (amp input), say 100k, plate choke can be good, simpler, but more expensive solution.

Re: simplifying the Guinevere [message #9242 is a reply to message #9237] Thu, 06 October 2005 00:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wayne Parham is currently offline  Wayne Parham
Messages: 18677
Registered: January 2001
Illuminati (33rd Degree)

You're right, I had planned to do a version with no solid state components, just a large choke from B+ to anode. I still plan to do that, and have all the parts set aside. But my plate is full with other projects and I never seem to have time.


confirmation [message #9243 is a reply to message #9240] Thu, 06 October 2005 04:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PakProtector is currently offline  PakProtector
Messages: 935
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
yes, I approve of any and all experimentation or use of that circuit for research.

I do wish to have an answer from the starter of this thread on the output impedance change. Maybe he didn't realize how the CCS works.

I would like to see some good plate load choke circuits. Unfortunately for a reasonable output Z, there is another stage required, or one takes the hit on drive capability.

Also, a more general Question: has anybody actually looked at the actual impedance provided by an anode choke? The capacitances from the winding-winding interaction usually give a self-resonance that is too low for my taste. There is no further increase in realized impedance after self resonance, so the choke does not really behave as an infinite load anymore.

With chokes, I have found that sonics improve with linearizing the inductive response. The easiest way to do this is with a gap in the stack. A non-linear load provided by a choke at LF, where its reactive and nearly round loadline is nearly equal to plate Z just does not make any reasonable sense to me. Yet!

I suspect this is a large part of what bugs me about a lot of SE amps I've heard. Take a 2A3 working into a 2k5 load. Textbook no? Primary L? let's say 10H. Omega*L at 20 cps is 1256 Ohms. That's going to be a squiggly mess at LF. Not to mention being more than a bit down on power delivery ability. It's -3dB point won't even come until 40 cps, where the reflected impedance equals the reactive one, and then we'll still be presenting the 2A3 with a load of 1k2( two 2k5 in parallel ). This sort of thing isn't going to start looking OK( let alone good ) until a few more octaves have passed under the bridge.

Absolutely room for some experimentation with inductive loads I always say. Just realize how they are working and figure a way to keep the less-than-ideal perfomance from becoming visible. But that's how we work anyway, no?

If there was such a thing as my hypothetical SE2A3 OpTx, I'd really like to know how to keep its shortcommings out of sight....
cheers,
Douglas

and a link [message #9244 is a reply to message #9243] Thu, 06 October 2005 09:53 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
PakProtector is currently offline  PakProtector
Messages: 935
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
to a description of the inductive load line from VoltSecond:
http://www.siteswithstyle.com/VoltSecond/211_Load_lines/211_LOAD_LINE.html

he covers a lot of it pretty well.
cheers,
Douglas


Previous Topic: Worth my while?
Next Topic: VTV Expo in November
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Apr 25 03:34:31 CDT 2024

Sponsoring Organizations

DIY Audio Projects
DIY Audio Projects
OddWatt Audio
OddWatt Audio
Pi Speakers
Pi Speakers
Prosound Shootout
Prosound Shootout
Smith & Larson Audio
Smith & Larson Audio
Tubes For Amps
TubesForAmps.com

Lone Star Audiofest