Bottlehead Forum

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share you ideas and experiences.

Return to Bottlehead Forum

Bottlehead Forum

e-mail from Thomas Mayer about EC8020

24.12.235.34

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Bottlehead Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Just received this this a.m.,
"Hi guys!
great new issue! I just downloaded it. I have a remark on the Nor'Easter article by Scott Scholl. Since there was no email address of Scott, I'm writing to you.
Scott mentions the use of the ultra high transconductance EC8020. I'm afraid, what he got from Richardson is not the real thing. I'm using the EC8020 in my 'VinylSavor' phonostage. I once also got EC8020s from Richardson. But I sent them back to the supplier, since they are remarkably similar to the EC8010. This is not a bad tube, but it's not even close to the EC8020. From the pictures I can judge that he got EC8010 which are probably labelled as EC8020.
The EC8010 has less than half the transconductance as the EC8020. It also has only 4.5W plate dissipation vs the 8W of the real thing. I thought you might want to let your readers now before they score the shelves of Richardson. As mentioned the EC8010 is not a bad tube by itself, but it can be had for much less than $50.
The genuine Telefunken EC8020s have a much bigger bottle. It has almost twice the diameter. It also has an impressive plate structure which I trust to be able to handle 8W of dissipation.
If you want more information about this tube, let me know.
Best regards
Thomas Mayer
Munich, Germany"
thomas.mayer@phillips.com

Follow Ups:

It's clear that I received EC8010s from Richardson Scholl 06:37:40 08/09/00 (1)
I'm in negotiations with Richardson about this problem and will post a circuit change to reflect the tube differance as soon as I can get some true EC8020. Any help locating this tube outside of Richardson would be helpful. I choose this tube for the design mainly because Richardson said they had many in stock. If a true EC8020 can't be found I'll change the design to 6c45pi.
But the EC8010 can take a real licking and keep on ticking I almost hate to change to EC8020s.
- Re: It's clear that I received EC8010s from Richardson BobC 07:51:24 08/09/00 (0)
  > But the EC8010 can take a real licking and keep on ticking I almost hate > to change to EC8020s.
  
  Then why bother?
  Bob
Re: e-mail from Thomas Mayer about EC8020 Scholl 11:11:25 08/08/00 (6)
Ohhh Noo are you shure!! These are the only EC8020s I've seen and they are marked EC8020. IS there a web site to see a picture? I wouldn't think the EC8010 wouldn't be able to drive the 572-10 into class A2 like these tubes do. The EC8020 has specs closer to the 5842 and the 5842 can't drive the 572-10 over class A1. The tubes I got from Richardson have plate about twice the size as 5842s. Maybe Thorsten could verify the situation. I'll give Richardson a call to see whats up.
- Re: e-mail from Thomas Mayer about EC8020 dave slagle 11:44:03 08/08/00 (5)
  hey,
  i think thomas is right... the EC8020 is the size of a 437A
  look at
  http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=37049&a=237580&p=25853573&Sequence=0
  for a compairison of 437A EC8020 and the 5842
  dave
  - Re: e-mail from Thomas Mayer about EC8020 Scholl 12:14:55 08/08/00 (4)
    From what I see of the plate suport in the picture and the tube I'm using are the same. The envelope on the National labled EC8020 is about twice the hight and maybe a little bigger in dia then the 5842. The plate size is about twice the size as well. I called Richardson and they are checking their stock. I'll report back as soon as I know. Again I don't think the EC8010 could drive the 572-10 into class A2 as it has twice the plate resistance. I've been running the National tube for several months without any plate spots. I would also think the EC8010 would start spotting run a almost twice its rating. Does anyone have a picture of the EC8010? Or better yet the EC8020 and EC8010 together?
    - Re: e-mail from Thomas Mayer about EC8020 Manfred Huber 06:09:10 08/09/00 (0)
      I have put the EC8010 next to the EC8020 on my scanner. See the picture. The diameter of the EC8010 in about 20mm while the EC8020 has a diameter of about 29mm. The EC8010 I have (Siemens) has the plate only on one side of the cathode while the EC8020 (Telefunken) has parts of the plate on both sides of the cathode. The best way to make sure it is an EC8020 would be to measure the plate resistance. The a simple way to do it would be to use a sine wave generator on the input of the amp. Use 1000Hz. Set the AC voltage on the grid of the output tube to 1.0Vrms. Now connect a 2K2 Resistor in parallel with R4. With an EC8020 the rms Voltage will drop to about 0.71V and with an EC8010 it will drop to about 0.58V (if my math is right). See http://home.t-online.de/home/mhuber/apsupg.htm for a few pictures of my EC8020 spud amp. There you will find a close-up picture of the EC8020 where you can see the two large plate finns of this tube.
      Regards
      Manfred
    - Re: e-mail from Thomas Mayer about EC8020 John D. 02:59:06 08/09/00 (2)
      I have some Siemens EC8010 marked as EC8010/8556 on the boxes and the plate structure is very similar to the Telefunken EC8020 in the picture that dave posted.
      I know that Simon Shilton of SJS has had problems in the past. He bought what he thought were EC8020 which were labelled as 8556/EC8010/EC8020 but were actually EC8010 and NOT EC8020.
      John D.
      - Re: e-mail from Thomas Mayer about EC8020 Thomas Mayer 06:33:43 08/09/00 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: e-mail from Thomas Mayer about EC8020 posted by John D. on August 09, 2000 at 02:59:06:
        
        All,
        just a few more comments about the EC8020/EC8010 issue.
        First I'd like to make clear that I did not intend to create
        confusion about this tube. And I also don't want to imply that
        only the Telefunken EC8020s are the real thing. It might well
        be that Scott has genuine EC8020s. But what I saw on the photo
        looked suspicious to me.
        I got my Telefunkens from a german supplier. After I got the
        first batch and planned to use them, I asked the same supplier
        if he has more. They didn't have any on stock, but mentioned they
        can order some. A few weeks later I got them. They have been
        labelled EC8010/EC8020/8556. Since I have some Siemens EC8010s
        I realized that they are just that a EC8010. I had a discussion
        with a person from that supplier who was their tube expert.
        He said that since certain types are scarce or no longer manufactured,
        current manufactueres tend to use the same tube and label it
        with different types as long as their specs are close enough.
        The EC8010 might work well in many applications which have been
        designed around the EC8020. They are pin compatible and both have
        a rather high transconductance. The EC8010 is about half a EC8020
        in terms of transconductance and plate dissipation.
        A unique feature of the EC8010 is the fact that cathode, grid
        and plate are assembled in a row. The plate does not enclose
        grid and cathode. This leaves the cathode exposed at one side,
        so that you can see it's glow very nicely. If Scott's tubes have
        that feature, I'm pretty sure they are EC8010s. The spave on just
        one side of the cathode would not allow a plate structure big
        enough to dissipate 8W.
        Scott, can you check that ? How thick is the metal of the plate ?
        Similar to the usual miniature tubes ? Or is it a hefty plate
        with metal about 1mm thick?
        The intention of my mail was just to give a warning to carefully
        check what you buy. If these are EC8010s, 50$ would be a hefty price.
        I'm curious what Richardson has to say about this.
        Ciao ... Thomas
        
        Re: e-mail from Thomas Mayer about EC8020 Scholl 06:47:49 08/09/00 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: e-mail from Thomas Mayer about EC8020 posted by Thomas Mayer on August 09, 2000 at 06:33:43:
        
        Yes the plate structure is as you discribe. I hope to have a responce from Richardson soon. I would like to stick with EC8020s for this design. Could you direct me to a source for 8020s? And thank you for you input even if it did rain on my parade. Honesty IS the best policy and I'll do what I can to correct the misslableing issue. The Nor'Easter is a very good sounding amp that solves a lot of power supply issues very simply, but the EC8010 used is being run at twice the rated plate dissipation but the dang think can really drive (might be time to move on from 5842s) and has been in operation this way for 4-5 months with very good results.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

You can not post to an archived thread.