Tube DIY Asylum

Do It Yourself (DIY) paradise for tube and SET project builders.

Return to Tube DIY Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Full music TJ 300B mesh Sofia traced plate curve

84.211.93.117

Posted on September 1, 2014 at 14:57:36
Balle Clorin
Audiophile

Posts: 781
Joined: July 30, 2003






Finally I found an actual true curve of the FM /TJ mesh 300B/n.( not like the WE300B copies that are given with the tubes)
So Ideceided to share it..

It actually reflects my own amp operaing point quite well. It is quite hot and needs -90V bias compared to -80 some other 300b tracer curves.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Full music TJ 300B mesh Sofia traced plate curve, posted on September 1, 2014 at 21:19:30
Alex Kitic
Audiophile

Posts: 182
Location: Serbia
Joined: June 25, 2014
What makes you think this was traced from a 300B mesh (fake mesh, i.e. perforated plate)? Is it because it was written on it?

With all sincerity, it's strange that the manufacturer does not provide a datasheet with traced curves for a bogus tube!

That said, I like the sound of the globe fake mesh version.

The operating point of your amp is not "hot" at 27.3W anode dissipation: the RH300B foresees 32-34W depending on rectifier used. Also, your operating point is quite high at 5k: you are missing both power and sound.

**********

******

http://rh-amps.blogspot.com/

 

RE: Full music TJ 300B mesh Sofia traced plate curve, posted on September 2, 2014 at 08:41:08
Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17302
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002
"Also, your operating point is quite high at 5k: you are missing both power and sound."

Could you expand on that please?

I understand the power part but not the sound.

Wouldn't the higher load impedance lower HD?

Tre'


Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

 

RE: Full music TJ 300B mesh Sofia traced plate curve, posted on September 2, 2014 at 09:14:22
Alex Kitic
Audiophile

Posts: 182
Location: Serbia
Joined: June 25, 2014
1) If you understand the part about power (dissipation), than you should be aware that your operating point is not the very least "hot" as you stated. At 67.5% of the maximum dissipation, this operating point is actually below conservative and limits the ouput power "per se" (assuming 25% of power dissipation a realistic estimate for possible ouput power, you are limiting your amp before even considering your choice of load.

2) As for load, 5k is way too high. Not only that it limits your output power, but you are actually not getting the lower distortion you seem to be interested in. Since you are already using some software that would allow you to simulate different loads and operating points, I guess you should start from there and check for yourself whether some operating point would be better. When checking the load-line for distortion, look for the distribution of harmonics, aiming a nice regular decay.

3) When it comes to sound, this is probably in the ear of the listener, but in my experience all opinions actually converge, just like parallel lines spreading to infinity (non-Euclidean geometry). A lower than usual load (like 1.5k-2k for 300B) leads to an impression of unnatural, huge instruments and under-developed sound-stage. A higher than usual load (like 4.5k-5.5k for 300B leads to thin sound, instruments that lack body, and uncertainty in the position of instruments...

Of course, you are free to dismiss any of my comments: after all, it's your amp... and the topic was TJ "fake" mesh curves.

***********

******

http://rh-amps.blogspot.com/

 

Because.., posted on September 2, 2014 at 11:37:21
Balle Clorin
Audiophile

Posts: 781
Joined: July 30, 2003
Many thanks for your comments.

"What makes you think this was traced from a 300B mesh (fake mesh, i.e. perforated plate)? Is it because it was written on it?"

No , it is because the curves I linked to actually fits the bias, voltage and currents that I can adjust and measure in my amplifier. My amplifier operating points does NOT fit the published fake WE300b curves that are given with the tubes, but fits the figure I gave here.

"With all sincerity, it's strange that the manufacturer does not provide a datasheet with traced curves for a bogus tube!"
Well, that is what can be found on the Chinese web site.

"The operating point of your amp is not "hot" at 27.3W anode dissipation: the RH300B foresees 32-34W depending on rectifier used."

By hot I mean that the tube has far higher current than normal for a given bias. The bias must be adjusted 10 volts more negative with this tube than others for the same current (70mA). Maybe this is common for new pruduction tubes,but it is certainly different from the Czech produced tubes. By the way The TJ 300b "mesh" can only take 28W maximum as I found on various sites, my information is from Mr Google, and Jac Music. My amp operates at 27W with TJ "mesh" tubes, that are recommended to operate at 22 watt. If that can tolerate more that is fine..

"
Also, your operating point is quite high at 5k: you are missing both power and sound."

True, but that was done to match the measured output impedance from Stereophile. I have not measured or found the actual impedance yet. I do not need much power, I operate between 0.1 and 0.3 watts, and like to minimize output impedance effects on frequency response. I will listen more to the 8 vs 4ohm tap and deceide...
Best regards
Balle


PS: I enjoy yor blog

 

RE: Because.., posted on September 2, 2014 at 12:19:22
Alex Kitic
Audiophile

Posts: 182
Location: Serbia
Joined: June 25, 2014
"By hot I mean that the tube has far higher current than normal for a given bias. The bias must be adjusted 10 volts more negative with this tube than others for the same current (70mA). Maybe this is common for new pruduction tubes,but it is certainly different from the Czech produced tubes."

Hot operating point should refer to the anode dissipation. Depending on the single tube, it will draw more or less current for a given operating point (voltage across tube and bias voltage). The curves given in datasheets (NOS) are related (and should be related in current production as well) to a "bogus tube" or better, an average production tube. After all, that is why "tube matching" is necessary.

If you need to go 10V more negative with this tube than with another to get the same current draw at a given voltage across the tube, this means that the tube is "stronger", "newer" - actually it means that the tube has higher transconductance (which will gradually decrease with aging). While your tubes obviously have higher transconductance than "normal", this does not necessarily apply to all TJ tubes.

Actually, I have noticed a rather high spread of characteristics with Chinese tubes in general (for instance, 2A3 by Shuguang: you can get matched pairs that draw 50mA, 45mA, and 40mA for the same operating point).

Therefore I guess that the reason why there are no "official" curves for the TJ 300B is the fact that production shows too high variation from a given average (which is obviously due to manufacturing issues). Nevertheless, from the user's standpoint what matters is actual peformance in terms of correct operation (no arcing and similar issues), longevity, and constant characteristics across the life of the tube.

"By the way The TJ 300b "mesh" can only take 28W maximum. Check with Mr Google, and Jac Music. My amp operates at 27W with TJ "mesh" tubes, that are recommended to operate at 22 watt."

I would like to pass on "Mr Google", it will just find what can be found on the net, depending on words indexed...

But it is not true that the 300B "fake mesh" can only take 28W anode dissipation!!!
1) This should be declared by the manufacturer;
2) The anode should redplate or develop red dots after a given point that would evidently show the maximum anode dissipation has been exceeded - which does not happen at 36W dissipation neither with "globe fake mesh" nor with "ST fake mesh" Chinese 300B.
3) Unlike the EML tubes Mr Jac likes so much (and are extremely expensive) because he distributes them (sic!), which are "real mesh" and thus the anodes due to the intrinsic characteristics of the material used have lower anode dissipation (lower mass per surface) -- the Chinese "fake mesh" anodes are not made of wire, rather they have holes in the plates which allow for the translucency effect (and the passage of electrons). But the mass of the anode is just slightly reduced, which is amply compensated by the fact that the anodes are larger.

It is also important to note that the globe and ST version of fake mesh 300B are not the same in terms of mechanical construction and anode material, the ST version seems to me even sturdier than Russian 300B tubes, and even the filamentary cathode draws more current than the standard 300B tubes.

Mr. Jac is just a tube trader - and an interested party in this case. I would not take too seriously whatever he states about the Chinese mesh tubes, just like I take whatever he states about EML tubes with a large grain of salt, because he distributes those tubes...


"True, but that was done to match the measured output impedance from Stereophile. I have not measured or found the actual impedance yet."

I am not sure what you mean, but what matters to the operating point is the LOAD. The load is the primary resistance seen by the tube on the primary of the OPT, as a function of the turns ratio and the resistance (loudspeaker impedance) on the secondary. It you are using a nominal 5k into 8 ohm transformer, and your speakers are a nominal 4 ohm, than your tubes "see" 2.5k primary resistance, or LOAD. If 6 ohm, your tubes "see" 3750 ohms. Obviously, for calculation purposes you should take into account the nominal resistance of the loudspeakers.

"I do not need much power, I operate between 0.1 and 0.3 watts, and like to minimize output impedance effects on frequency response."

How come? Are you using 104dB/W/m speakers in a very small room? I need every single mW I can get from my amps... at least as a dynamic reserve.

**********

******

http://rh-amps.blogspot.com/

 

"all opinions...converge", posted on September 2, 2014 at 13:29:00
Jim Dowdy
Manufacturer

Posts: 1518
Location: Atlanta, GA
Joined: July 22, 2000
Perhaps if we were able to listen without bias/prejudice [into similar, practical speakers], opinions might converge.
But, in the real world - we need to accept that they do not...and, that is one of the major reasons this forum exists.

FWIW: after exploring close to one hundred different op points/loads for the 300B, the best all-around load I've found is 5k.

 

RE: "all opinions...converge", posted on September 2, 2014 at 17:30:46
Tre'
Industry Professional

Posts: 17302
Location: So. Cal.
Joined: February 9, 2002
In the chart published by W.E. there is an operating point of 400vdc 60ma. into 5k that gives 8.3 watts at favorable HD figures.

There's even one using a 6.5k load.

Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"

 

RE: Full music TJ 300B mesh Sofia traced plate curve, posted on September 2, 2014 at 21:32:29
Alex Kitic
Audiophile

Posts: 182
Location: Serbia
Joined: June 25, 2014
Jim Dowdy:
What do you mean by "explored"? Research/read, or simulate, or try in practice? When making a statement, it's important to state correctly what you meant.
Research is nice but inconclusive, simulation requires precisely matched spice models to be relevant, while I sincerely doubt that you have tried in practice 100 operating points: you would need to use several output transformers in the same amp, and probably fixed bias along with a very flexible power supply!
So, in which fashion did you"explore"?

Tre':
You can choose whichever operating point and load you want - as long as you do not exceed relevant parameters/limitations. You can choose 10k if you wish....
The loads and op points shown are just suggestions, documented with power output and distortion figures. But it's mere example and analytics! And, it probably addresses ONLY the output stage, while a real life amp needs at least one more stage.
With a minimum of knowledge and amp design skills, anyone should be able to choose an operating point and load to his/her own liking.
My RH300B operates at an operating point not mentioned at all in the table shown by WE (96mA current draw, 335-350V across the tube depending on the rectifier used, 2.5k load). Check it out for additional info, if you're interested.

***********

******

http://rh-amps.blogspot.com/

 

300B experiments, posted on September 2, 2014 at 22:04:53
Jim Dowdy
Manufacturer

Posts: 1518
Location: Atlanta, GA
Joined: July 22, 2000
By 'explored,' I am referring to experimentation/listening to what sounded best to me on my system. I used newly manufactured WE tubes and the vast majority of the listening was bi-amped (listening to the 300B amp above 80 Hz). Multiple OPTs were used; with cathode bias.

I don't really care if you believe I have tried 100 different operating points/loads or not...perhaps it was only 75.
But that is beside the points - which are:
a) 5k is a very viable choice for use with the 300B, and
b) opinions do not necessarily converge.

Your response to Tre' reinforces this reality - you state: "anyone should be able to choose an operating point and load to his/her own liking."

BTW: the operating point I settled on as sounding best is very close to your's - 'though I preferred it into a 5k load.

 

agree. 5K for 300B, thumbs up (nt), posted on September 3, 2014 at 09:04:38
zarniwoop
Audiophile

Posts: 590
Location: NY
Joined: November 28, 2002
nt

 

RE: 300B experiments, posted on September 3, 2014 at 11:10:13
Alex Kitic
Audiophile

Posts: 182
Location: Serbia
Joined: June 25, 2014
I don't care either whether you've tried 100 or 20 operating points: but I don't like bold statements with exaggerations. Assuming you have a pair of transformers with 2 primary options and 3 secondary options, you could probably 3 or 4 different load values combining those. When you add a number of operating points (let's say 60, 70, 80, 90 mA) and a few voltage across the tube values (300, 350, 400) - we could realistically estimate that you might have tried probably 20-40 operating points, of which more than one half do not make any sense at all. Reasonable experimentation would probably not exceed those 20 reasonable operating point and load conditions: thus 100 is a very bold number...

If you like the 5k load with a current draw similar to mine, you've obviously got very different speakers than myself. I would guess they are efficient and bass heavy... and you are probably NOT using the globe "fake mesh" version: again, I guess it's either Sovtek or Electro-Harmonix. Because - at 5k the 300B sounds rather "thin" and lacking in mass.

Of course, I advocate freedom of choice and abhor the situation with 300B amps in general (commercial and DIY) which might be qualified as "replicatio ad absurdum", with the three stage cascaded driver (usually 6SN7) being rather boringly omnipresent...
******

http://rh-amps.blogspot.com/

 

Too old, not relevant..., posted on September 3, 2014 at 11:27:02
Triode_Kingdom
Audiophile

Posts: 10047
Location: Central Texas
Joined: September 24, 2006
Perhaps Mr. Kitic believes the work reported by Western Electric is "lacking by today's standards." That was the response after I posted data from Mullard.

 

;-), posted on September 3, 2014 at 15:08:23
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
What did those old engineers at WE know?




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

do you mean Bogey Tube, posted on September 3, 2014 at 16:15:53
elektron
Audiophile

Posts: 952
Location: midwest
Joined: February 18, 2004
and not Bogus tube? It seems that may be the case - a Bogey Tube meaning
an 'average' behaving tube.

 

Operating Point, posted on September 3, 2014 at 19:00:40
Caucasian Blackplate
Industry Professional

Posts: 8313
Location: Seattle
Joined: June 18, 2004
Let's see, 390V 70mA 90V bias.

WE Specs these:

400V plate, -91V bias, 40mA plate current (gasp!), and a 5K load should make 8.5 watts with the 2nd harmonic 26dB below the fundamental and 3rd harmonic 37dB below fundamental.

400Vp, -89V bias, 50mA IP, 3K load, 11.5W, 21dB 2nd, 31dB 3rd.

400Vp, -89V bias, 50mA IP, 4K load, 9.4W, 25dB 2nd, 38dB 3rd.

400Vp, -87V bias, 60mA IP, 3.5K load, 10.5W, 26dB 2nd, 38dB 3rd.

400Vp, -87V bias, 60mA IP, 5K load, 8.3W, 30dB 2nd, 46dB 3rd. (look familiar?)

These datapoint suggest that your operating point should work very, very well with a 5K load. Who gives a rip about 8W vs. 11W (I don't).

The WE curves are for a "bogey" tube, and WE had a reputation for throwing away tons and tons of 300B's, only keeping the best of the best. We could certainly do that with modern production 300B's, but I would ask why? Do we need this kind of consistency, or is a little variation in plate curves acceptable for a 75% reduction in costs?

 

RE: do you mean Bogey Tube, posted on September 3, 2014 at 20:56:40
Alex Kitic
Audiophile

Posts: 182
Location: Serbia
Joined: June 25, 2014
Of course I meant BOGEY TUBE! Actually, I did mention the word average in one of the posts where I used the word.

The lapsus calami was caused by the combination of stupid prediction software and trying to type fast on a tablet screen...

Please read quote from above post:

[QUOTE] The curves given in datasheets (NOS) are related (and should be related in current production as well) to a "bogus tube" or better, an average production tube. [/QUOTE]

**********

******

http://rh-amps.blogspot.com/

 

RE: Too old, not relevant..., posted on September 3, 2014 at 21:19:58
Alex Kitic
Audiophile

Posts: 182
Location: Serbia
Joined: June 25, 2014
There is a huge difference between the two examples.

The Mullard example is taken from an "application note", as it is called today. The note is advocating a design practice that might reflect favorably to sales and use of their products (EL84 and EL34).

The WE table is taken from the datasheet and is illustrating the various operating points and loads recommended for the product in question. And it is very useful as such. Of course, those are just examples that should lead the engineer in his design work.

One must be very superficial to miss this distinction. Furthermore, none of the texts has scientific or academic value, and neither of the texts was ever intended to have. Marketing departments and general lack of knowledge have lead to some sort of canonization of "ancient" technical texts.

********

******

http://rh-amps.blogspot.com/

 

RE: Too old, not relevant..., posted on September 3, 2014 at 23:07:31
Triode_Kingdom
Audiophile

Posts: 10047
Location: Central Texas
Joined: September 24, 2006
"those are just examples that should lead the engineer in his design work."

You say that, but the fact is, you sound very much like someone who has never made such measurements for himself. If you had, we wouldn't be having the discussion re: triode/pentode distortion in the other thread.

 

RE: Too old, not relevant..., posted on September 4, 2014 at 05:29:40
Alex Kitic
Audiophile

Posts: 182
Location: Serbia
Joined: June 25, 2014
With all frankness, I don't understand where is this leading?

It seems that you are not familiar with me or my work. You assumptions are totally incorrect...

Besides, it seems to me that you are intent on discrediting me in order to try proving your point. I don't think that is going to work.
******

http://rh-amps.blogspot.com/

 

RE: Too old, not relevant..., posted on September 4, 2014 at 09:56:55
Triode_Kingdom
Audiophile

Posts: 10047
Location: Central Texas
Joined: September 24, 2006
Well, on a better note, I see from your blog that we're using essentially the same method of ultrasonic heating. I still worry about the possible consequences of squarewaves, but so far, I don't hear a reason to change. My modified units are going on more than ten years now. One died from excess circulating currents when I tried to filter it, but other than that, they've been reliable. :)

 

RE: Too old, not relevant..., posted on September 4, 2014 at 11:40:27
Kyle K
Audiophile

Posts: 174
Location: Mililani
Joined: November 6, 2000
Alex,

I've been looking at your site for about a year. Lot's of interesting information. It seems that the technical specifications for your amplifier designs are from spice simulations. Have you done any actual measurements to compare with the simulation results? Just curious.

 

RE: "all opinions...converge", posted on September 4, 2014 at 18:01:34
glenz10183@aol.com
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 84
Location: New York
Joined: September 27, 2003
You are not alone, Jim. Toshi Kurashima likes a 4.2K primary impedance for his 300B amplifiers. The WE 171a is his choice.


-George

 

RE: Too old, not relevant..., posted on September 4, 2014 at 23:47:10
hennfarm
Audiophile

Posts: 535
Location: Oregon
Joined: October 8, 2008
Dear Sir,
I did visit your blogspot and for demanding such exacting scientific proof in this thread I sure read a lot of probably, shoulds and oughtos in the 813 se build text. Just saying....JH:-)

 

RE: Too old, not relevant..., posted on September 5, 2014 at 06:15:34
Alex Kitic
Audiophile

Posts: 182
Location: Serbia
Joined: June 25, 2014
[QUOTE]
Well, on a better note, I see from your blog that we're using essentially the same method of ultrasonic heating. I still worry about the possible consequences of squarewaves, but so far, I don't hear a reason to change. My modified units are going on more than ten years now. One died from excess circulating currents when I tried to filter it, but other than that, they've been reliable. :)
[/QUOTE]

It was interesting to read about your experience and method. I was surprised that you did tamper with the "splitter" (first transformer) but not with the output transformer.

1) For European market units voltage is obvioulsy doubled, while current is halved... (I suggest the addition of a 200-330uF/400V cap).

2) Modern units usually have frequencies in excess of 40kHz (good quality modern units operate at 60kHz). The unit pictured on my blog (black) operates at 30kHz. Even with that unit, there are no audible artefacts, and I am satisfied.

3) The audibility of hum/noise is related only to the "modulating" 100Hz (or 120Hz), if that is solved there is not hum/noise to be found whatsoever. I am considering a "regulated" approach whereby the input DC after the bridge would not only be additionally filtered with the cap, but actually regulated, eliminating the 100Hz (hum) modulation.

4) Not all units will encounter the problem you mention (fusible resistor) and besides the resistor it depends obviously on the diodes. I usually upgrade the diodes to 1N5408 or BY255. The fusible resistor can be replaced with a fuse (3A slow blow) or even better, with an NTC thermistor of adequate current capability (current rating for thermistors should be chosen based on "constant draw", not initial peak expected). Some modern units might even already include the NTC for slow turn-on.

5) If the output transformer is toroid, it is rather easy to adjust the output voltage by changing the turns ratio. In particular, several secondaries can be used simultaneously - which might be particularly advantageous when the technique is applied to low wattage heaters (the 300B or 2A3 consume about 6W, while the 813 requires 50W...) since most units actually have a "lowest current limit" under which they will not operate or operate intermittently.

I am aware of the theoretical problems (audible?) that this system might have, but not due to the (imperfect) square wave output, rather because of the possible intermodulation, the frequency mixing, etc. Still, I cannot hear anything, and none of my friends and family was ever able to hear anything (less hum and/or noise than with DC, definitely).

My opinion regarding why the frequency is not that critical, and why the expected effects cannot be heard is that the application of a humdinger pot (resistors arrangement) effectively cancels the first harmonic of the HF applied (let's say 30kHz) leaving us with much attenuated second harmonic content (for 30kHz that would be 60kHz). The effect thus starts from a rather high frequency and is already attentuated to the point where the effects are not audible.

In reality, once we get rid of the initial rectification hum (let's call it modulation), the frequency mixing is the only phenomenon that might be a cause of audible artefacts. Even at 30kHz, the "hum" is already attenuated in respect to the music signal, and very few OPTs can pass 30kHz without appreciable attenuation... not to mention tweeters... and finally our ears. I do not know anyone who hears 30kHz tones :D

I know the approach is not new, but seldom applied, and little documented. I would like to introduce at least some predictability in the process for fellow DIYers (make repeatability of results possible).

The only practical problem I see is how to measure the output and how to fine tune it... but that would be another topic. I prefer not using resistors to burn out voltage for the heaters (in the HF AC approach), thus I modify the output transformer. One of the problems here is that most transformers originally do not give a 12V output (rather 11.2-11.6 depending on the load) and that after the addition of the cap after the rectifier bridge the ouput voltage will be higher in RMS terms. How can you be sure that without modifying your output transformer you are getting a correct output voltage for your 211 tubes? Do you measure it, and how?

************

******

http://rh-amps.blogspot.com/

 

RE: Too old, not relevant..., posted on September 5, 2014 at 06:23:23
Alex Kitic
Audiophile

Posts: 182
Location: Serbia
Joined: June 25, 2014
[QUOTE]
I sure read a lot of probably, shoulds and oughtos in the 813 se build text
[/QUOTE]

There are exactly 12 "should" in the RH813 text, and none of those are given to show uncertainty or inexactitude.

After all, this is a DIY text proposing an (excellent, if I am free to say so)amplifier to fellow DIYers who might wish to build one, or are looking for ideas and inspiration.

I really do not know what else can I comment about this... probably even this comment was not necessary.

*******

******

http://rh-amps.blogspot.com/

 

Ultrasonic Heating, posted on September 5, 2014 at 09:05:27
Triode_Kingdom
Audiophile

Posts: 10047
Location: Central Texas
Joined: September 24, 2006
Glad to hear you've had good luck with these. All the modules I've tested so far have oscillated at 20 kHz to 25 kHz. Perhaps some of the newer models oscillate at a higher frequency, but I'm not comfortable even with 30 kHz. At one time during the early stages of my work, Lynn Olsen cautioned about the possibility of IM in the audio band. If I remember correctly, he referenced the fact that some devices, such as CD players, generate digital noise above 20 kHz. This low-level noise is usually benign, but mixed with the square wave on the filament, it might generate audible artifacts. That was enough to convince me the frequency should be as high as is practical. It's only a little work to modify the first transformer, and that raises the frequency above 60 kHz.

The earlier post that I linked to from 2003 noted the value of the capacitor I used at the output of the rectifier. With that cap, ripple is almost nonexistent on the square wave, and there is no audible filament hum at the output of the amplifier. I think the value was similar to what you're using.

The output transformers in the supplies I bought were not toroidal, and that was the main reason I didn't attempt to modify them. As for regulation, I haven't found it to be a problem. These units are no worse than a conventional filament transformer, so this is an area that I don't worry about. Regarding the measurement, the output of the supplies is a reasonably good square wave. I simply used a calibrated 'scope to set it for +/- 10V (20V p-p) across the 211 filament.

Yes, it would be interesting to fine tune this approach, and maybe make something available to the DIY community. I'm currently in the process of rebuilding my amplifiers, so I might revisit all this in the near future. :)

 

:-) /n, posted on September 5, 2014 at 09:19:56
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
n


First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

A "good load" depend on the gain/driver stage and design, posted on September 6, 2014 at 02:08:06
Balle Clorin
Audiophile

Posts: 781
Joined: July 30, 2003
My 300B


Mr Kitics RH300B




At least in my amplifier 5000 turns out to be a good load.
It is not correct to only look at the 300B ,since the driver /gain distortion interacts heavily with the 300B. I can simulate my amp based on accurate spice models. And I find that 6SN7 does not have sufficient linear gain to drive a 300b fully, but that is what I am stuck with. My input clips before the 300B, so it is not optimal. But I think my amplifier sound wonderful with my speakers.I will live long and happily with this combo.

The table below shows that in my amp 5k ohm load is still a good choice.
for Mr Kitics amp RH300b the 2500 load seem better than 5000. So that is that. By the way, my simulations tells me that different tubes will distort very different in each design, and evaluating tubes across design are may be very misleading.

Best regards
Balle

 

RE: A "good load" depend on the gain/driver stage and design, posted on September 6, 2014 at 03:58:04
Alex Kitic
Audiophile

Posts: 182
Location: Serbia
Joined: June 25, 2014
Great simulation - I guess your 300B model is good, but I am not sure about your ECC81 and 6SN7 models, which are also important for the end result.

Just as I wrote earlier, it is the circuitry of the amp that counts, not just the operating point or the load. And regardless of that technical issue, the remark about the sound into differing loads is a valid observation - although it may depend on the speakers sensitivity and tone as well.

I have recently improved all my spice models to a level of near perfection (all triode models I use)(by near perfection I mean that the simulated curves are virtually identical to those presented in the datasheets) and this has lead to further optimization of the RH300B (change of Rfb and Ra resistors on the ECC81). Output power has of course increased, so now I can count on approximately 13W at 5% distortion (which is the usual distortion level used). I should write a new blog entry documenting this optimization and several related topics, but just cannot find the time to do it.

I also get a different decay of harmonics than you get in your simulation, which is why I presume that it is probably caused by the imperfection of the ECC81 spice model (in particular).
******

http://rh-amps.blogspot.com/

 

RE: A "good load" depend on the gain/driver stage and design, posted on September 6, 2014 at 09:23:28
Balle Clorin
Audiophile

Posts: 781
Joined: July 30, 2003






I use Andrei Frolovs Curve captor. A fantastic tool that generates spice code for Norman Korens 8 parameter curves. It fits perfectly with any tube curve. The dots are points from datasheet curve , lines are the model. .I found program linked somewhere in this or DIY audio forum

In order to get accurate distortion calulation in LTSpice I need to specify a short time step and also specify " no data compression"

* ECC81 macro model
.subckt ECC81 P G K
koren8(0.03431957815,-0.02156357481,2.303890189,91.06322625,-77.3757358,61.37729547,-9.442653676,1.183113473)
.ends ECC81


* ECC81 LTSpice model
.subckt ECC81 P G K
Bp P K I=(0.03431957815m)*uramp(V(P,K)*ln(1.0+(-0.02156357481)+exp((2.303890189)+(2.303890189)*((91.06322625)+(-77.3757358m)*V(G,K))*V(G,K)/sqrt((61.37729547)**2+(V(P,K)-(-9.442653676))**2)))/(2.303890189))**(1.183113473)
.ends ECC81.

6SN7 FITTED TO DATASHEET-GREEN CURve
* 6SN7WGTk8 LTSpice model
.subckt 6SN7WGTk8 P G K
Bp P K I=(0.02170661176m)*uramp(V(P,K)*ln(1.0+(-0.1418880099)+exp((5.336202785)+(5.336202785)*((22.20702463)+(-20.28905564m)*V(G,K))*V(G,K)/sqrt((-0.0001481184562)**2+(V(P,K)-(-11.62245799))**2)))/(5.336202785))**(1.347919701)
Cgk G K 2.4p ; 0.2p added
Cpk P K 1.2p ; 0.5p added
Cgp G P 4.2p ; 0.5p added
Rpk P K 1G ; to avoid floating nodes
d3 G K dx1
.model dx1 d(is=1n rs=2k cjo=1pf N=1.5 tt=1n)
.ends

Balle

 

RE: A "good load" depend on the gain/driver stage and design, posted on September 9, 2014 at 03:45:07
Alex Kitic
Audiophile

Posts: 182
Location: Serbia
Joined: June 25, 2014

Can you please explain the difference between the red and green curve for 6SN7?

For the ECC81 this is an illustration of the comparison between my model and the datasheet curves (as published on the blog).

I have superimposed the simulated curves with the graph from the datasheet.

How do you check your models?
******

http://rh-amps.blogspot.com/

 

RE: A "good load" depend on the gain/driver stage and design, posted on September 12, 2014 at 10:21:21
Balle Clorin
Audiophile

Posts: 781
Joined: July 30, 2003
1. The green curve is traced and fitted to the published datasheet buy Curve captor tool. The red curve is from a package of spice models from Duncan pages. It is clearly wrong/ too good and does not fit the published curves.

2. You can see the model fit in my first post. The dots are points from the datasheet curves. and,the lines ar the fitted model.

Best regards
Balle

 

Page processed in 0.042 seconds.