Tube DIY Asylum

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

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: Dave...

Posted by dave slagle on June 14, 2021 at 06:55:00:
I initially simmed this with a cascoded 10m45 since I already had the circuit built and indeed the values needed to be matched which seemed to confirm TK's original criticism. Then I went to a single lowly 10m45 and found for a 6SN7 with a 30,000Ω resistor on the left tube I needed a 30,775Ω to match the outputs from 100Hz to 1kHz. This combined with broskies use of the term "slightly" got me into this discussion. If this is picking nits then so be it but there is probably an equal chance of the same conversation happening if his underlying assumption was the mythical ideal CCS. If you look at his audience, I suspect a good majority of them fall into the group who think a single 10M45 is close enough to the ideal which makes me not take issue with his statement and I still feel adding the assumption of the ideal and then calling it in error is more akin to a cheap shot than a valid criticism.

dave