AudioRoundTable.com: Group Build

Home » Audio » Group Build » Inside Guinevere

Show: Today's Messages :: Navigator :: Polls
E-mail to friend

Re: save me some hunting please... [message #30937 is a reply to message #30924]

Fri, 11 March 2005 13:13

Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009

Illuminati (13th Degree)

T and Colin; Bob Daneliack site does the amp I thought was a 1619 which is actually a 1626 tube, sorry for the confusion. It's called the Darling amp. It was originally posted in Sound Practices as an article. I have a copy if you guys are interested and I belive bob post's on the Joe List.

Report message to a moderator

I got motivated... [message #30940 is a reply to message #30937]

Fri, 11 March 2005 16:25

PakProtector
Messages: 935
Registered: May 2009

Illuminati (2nd Degree)

I found a few with google, 1619 + amplifier. How simple is *THAT*? I saw a neat one with a tertiary winding cathode feedback OPTx. Still had loop NFB. And a triode connected one( at SE 2A3 power ).

The 1619 in low percentage U-L with E-Linear drivers still seems like the best idea. I know it worked with mediocre OPTx, and with a good one, it ought to be stellar. The 1624 does have the glass envelope advantage...

I am still trying to decide if a 40W core is better than a 20W core design. Or if a tertiary winding rig might be best. I guess it depends on how much you are willing to risk on the build.
regards,
Douglas

Report message to a moderator

1624 Schematic [message #30941 is a reply to message #30924]

Fri, 11 March 2005 17:41

cheetah
Messages: 70
Registered: May 2009

Viscount

Link to 1624 based amp.

Report message to a moderator

Re: I got motivated... [message #30942 is a reply to message #30940]

Fri, 11 March 2005 18:11

Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009

Illuminati (13th Degree)

Wish I could bring something to the table here, not aware of what adverse risk would entail. Any chance the 1626 would work?

Report message to a moderator

that's appropriate.... [message #30943 is a reply to message #30941]

Fri, 11 March 2005 18:23

PakProtector
Messages: 935
Registered: May 2009

Illuminati (2nd Degree)

as it was Gary's 47 amp which led me to the E-Linear connection discovery. I found that the amp ran into headroom troubles when we ran right off of the plate, hence the use of the screen tap for driver voltage. I did not attempt it with pentodes so there is likely not such a problem as with triodes.

My amp is a bit simpler than that, but probably similar in performance( IMO, likely better, but I am biased, no? ). It does not have the direct coupling issues( but instead, capacitor ones ). there are a few differences in execution, but for thigs like filament TX choice, Gary has got it nailed. I also think 10k a-a is a better load for U-L connected finals. I am also doing away with the input TX. The cascode differential amp/long-tail-pair phase splitter will handle that better IMO.
regards,
Douglas

Report message to a moderator

Re: I got motivated... [message #30944 is a reply to message #30942]

Fri, 11 March 2005 18:30

PakProtector
Messages: 935
Registered: May 2009

Illuminati (2nd Degree)

the 1626 is a small single triode. Its plate Z is ~2k5 at a reasonable O-P. It could be made to work as an amp's final, but there are better IMO. Type 45 among them( and I'm not much of a 45 fan ).

this is another option for using the Guinevere power Iron, PP 45's. Same 10k PP OPTx, but a bit lighter a current load than a pair of 2A3's. 45's are a bit on the expensive side, especially for new production.

If a small triode PP amp is what you'd like, let's see if we can find a cool, nearly unknown one for it. 3 or 4 sections of 5687 per phase are one neat sol'n...
regards,
Douglas

Report message to a moderator

Re: I got motivated... [message #30945 is a reply to message #30944]

Fri, 11 March 2005 18:42

Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009

Illuminati (13th Degree)

I'll tell you why, you have the PP thing down and are enthusiastic about it. I believe the best design is more important than the SE or PP aspect. Plus I like a little power.
Now that I am convinced I would ask that you; seeing as how your willing, just do what you do best and we'll build it.
But I really like those Heybouer's so I would want the real good ones. Mono-blocks and big iron.
Also would be good if it uses the existing oilers left over from the Guinevere. Make it nice like you would want to own.
We'll follow the ducky principle and waddle around after you.

Report message to a moderator

such a responsibility [message #30946 is a reply to message #30945]

Fri, 11 March 2005 19:00

PakProtector
Messages: 935
Registered: May 2009

Illuminati (2nd Degree)

this is getting too much like spending somebody else's money I think.

I drew up a schematic on a big piece of paper for another chap building the 1624 amp. Let me see if I can get him to scan it for me so I can post it for inspection and commentary.

If not, I'll draw up a few 8.5 x 11's in sections...
regards,
Douglas

Report message to a moderator