Hi Johann,
No problem, I wasnt overly offended, it is ok. I read some of your posts, and I can see what you mean. It looks like they don't like you or something, and some of the replies were not really nice from them.
But, I have to be honest, some of your replies were also not so nice.
I see you have a strong opinion about things, and some people don't like that.
If I were you, I would try not to respond everytime someone doesnt agree with you.
OK enough with that!
You think the 1 ohm series resistor with the primary is to small? I thought to minimise the effect of the measuring resistor on the rest of the setup.
But I think you are right; if I use a larger resistor I get a larger drop, which is easier to measure.
I would suspect that with a small voltage-swing the hysteresis effect would be clearer. So if I use a swing of say 10v PP, at a 5Kohm primary transformer 1 ohm is definitely to small, it would result in ~2mV pp swing in the 1 ohm resistor. That is maximum sensitivity of my scope.
Hmm, I think 100 Ohm would be better. And 8 Ohm at the secondary of course.
Dont know when I can try it, but I will put results here.
Thanks, Paul
No problem, I wasnt overly offended, it is ok. I read some of your posts, and I can see what you mean. It looks like they don't like you or something, and some of the replies were not really nice from them.
But, I have to be honest, some of your replies were also not so nice.
I see you have a strong opinion about things, and some people don't like that.
If I were you, I would try not to respond everytime someone doesnt agree with you.
OK enough with that!
You think the 1 ohm series resistor with the primary is to small? I thought to minimise the effect of the measuring resistor on the rest of the setup.
But I think you are right; if I use a larger resistor I get a larger drop, which is easier to measure.
I would suspect that with a small voltage-swing the hysteresis effect would be clearer. So if I use a swing of say 10v PP, at a 5Kohm primary transformer 1 ohm is definitely to small, it would result in ~2mV pp swing in the 1 ohm resistor. That is maximum sensitivity of my scope.
Hmm, I think 100 Ohm would be better. And 8 Ohm at the secondary of course.
Dont know when I can try it, but I will put results here.
Thanks, Paul
Hi again, the distortion in SE is the same of the push pull and the same of all the topologies, in PP if you have a balanced output with well charge driving you lost the pairs or even harmonics. But always you need a matched pair and a well made transformer.
One important thing of SE that always work in A class. With PP you can make more easy without passing all the current in all the cycle of the tube. The efficiency is better but you still have 3th and odd group of harmonics.
The power supply in SE is transcendent for hum but no for intermodulation distortion because the consume is at 100%, how you don't need a big bank or capacitor like in AB or B classes that in the fortissimos need more power you have on charge there in caps. Also in SE The hum is too ostensible because the transformer doesn't cancel. But in PP you have this class of benefices.
I am not an engineer i am an hobbyist one. I work in health on ICU at hospitals. But i will try you suggestion Mr big Johan Stephan Popilin Frind. If is possible to show a diagram for see this hysteresis envelope and maybe you suggest the time base of the oscilloscope for help us the mortal people that hope to learn from the big monsters of the audio investigation
One important thing of SE that always work in A class. With PP you can make more easy without passing all the current in all the cycle of the tube. The efficiency is better but you still have 3th and odd group of harmonics.
The power supply in SE is transcendent for hum but no for intermodulation distortion because the consume is at 100%, how you don't need a big bank or capacitor like in AB or B classes that in the fortissimos need more power you have on charge there in caps. Also in SE The hum is too ostensible because the transformer doesn't cancel. But in PP you have this class of benefices.
I am not an engineer i am an hobbyist one. I work in health on ICU at hospitals. But i will try you suggestion Mr big Johan Stephan Popilin Frind. If is possible to show a diagram for see this hysteresis envelope and maybe you suggest the time base of the oscilloscope for help us the mortal people that hope to learn from the big monsters of the audio investigation
Hi Paul
Thank you for your understanding, but if you were systematically persecuted, attacked, and ashamed by someone, you culd understand me better, is true, sometimes react badly, but the experience makes me that, there is a forum member that make the same with me for almost two years!!!
Fortunately there are people like you and Dady and many more, who are friendly and civilized.
With measurements going in the right direction, be careful not to overload the generator.
What else I can tell? the same thing I told Dady, without wishing to offend you, you look like an electronics engineer, and I do not mean quacks, "opinionologyst" and critics by profession, but a good one !!!
I think you are a great hobbyist!!!
BTW, I envy your transformers, 0.05mm, wow!!! mine is NOSS C core, but 0.25mm. But is what we have and can pay. Core only, I must to winding someday
Best regards
Johann
Thank you for your understanding, but if you were systematically persecuted, attacked, and ashamed by someone, you culd understand me better, is true, sometimes react badly, but the experience makes me that, there is a forum member that make the same with me for almost two years!!!
Fortunately there are people like you and Dady and many more, who are friendly and civilized.
With measurements going in the right direction, be careful not to overload the generator.
What else I can tell? the same thing I told Dady, without wishing to offend you, you look like an electronics engineer, and I do not mean quacks, "opinionologyst" and critics by profession, but a good one !!!
I think you are a great hobbyist!!!
BTW, I envy your transformers, 0.05mm, wow!!! mine is NOSS C core, but 0.25mm. But is what we have and can pay. Core only, I must to winding someday
Best regards
Johann
Hi Dady
I am so slow to write, when I finish and post there are five more.
You never cease to surprise me!!!
You do not need any particular scheme, our friend Paul interpreted my suggestion very well, does what he, and just play with the scope, time base depends on frequency you use, just play, the scope will survive.
Best regards
Popilín
I am so slow to write, when I finish and post there are five more.
You never cease to surprise me!!!
You do not need any particular scheme, our friend Paul interpreted my suggestion very well, does what he, and just play with the scope, time base depends on frequency you use, just play, the scope will survive.
Best regards
Popilín
Hi Michael Koster
Do not want you to feel offended by my comments, but in post # 12 I said no magnetization, because the analysis is much more complicated.
Magnetization is given by
B = H + 4(Pi) M
And zero crossing of hysteresis loop means that B=0 at two points in the hysteresis loop curve, B is a vector, and a change in its sign means a reversal in its sense of direction, this cause an impact in magnetic domains of the core IMHO, I called zero crossing because my knowledge is limited, and my English is worse.
But what else I can do? I'm just a TV repairman.
Best regards
Johann
Hi Johann,
I meant to say rate/reversal of voltage change rather than magnetization. And english is my first language
So I find that the magnetic hysteresis occurs when the direction of the voltage change reverses, i.e. increasing to decreasing, rather than the polarity change (plus to minus) of the applied voltage.
This means to me that there isn't any additional source of hysteresis or distortion in the case of PP vs. SE. In fact, the typical B-H curve shown in your first plate has a polarity reversal in the middle and there is no bump
It seems to have more of an impact on small signals because the magnetization energy is small compared with signal level in a good transformer.
Your second diagram is thought-provoking but it doesn't correspond with any measurement I've ever seen so I'm suspicious of the context and meaning wrt. audio output transformers. I'll need to study the reference.
Thanks!
Michael
I meant to say rate/reversal of voltage change rather than magnetization. And english is my first language
So I find that the magnetic hysteresis occurs when the direction of the voltage change reverses, i.e. increasing to decreasing, rather than the polarity change (plus to minus) of the applied voltage.
This means to me that there isn't any additional source of hysteresis or distortion in the case of PP vs. SE. In fact, the typical B-H curve shown in your first plate has a polarity reversal in the middle and there is no bump
It seems to have more of an impact on small signals because the magnetization energy is small compared with signal level in a good transformer.
Your second diagram is thought-provoking but it doesn't correspond with any measurement I've ever seen so I'm suspicious of the context and meaning wrt. audio output transformers. I'll need to study the reference.
Thanks!
Michael
The DC field in a SE xfmr causes the highest permeability domains in the material to flip one way permanently, leaving the lower permeability domains to switch back and forth for the signal, plus the air gap to lower the perm. even further. For a given signal voltage, and a similar core/winding design, the same number of domains must flip back and forth for the same voltage swing (voltage proportional to flux swing) whether P-P or SE, so the SE xfmr has to be made much bigger to compensate for the loss of domains. The total hysteresis would be similar for both cases (P-P, SE) if the core length stayed the same, but the SE with it's bigger core will end up with more material switching along the longer magnetic path.
The hysteresis shows up as a non-linear magnetizing current, ie. in the primary inductance, not as direct distortion in the voltage conversion. Lower primary inductance means higher magnetizing current. Again, both SE and P-P could be similar if made to the same primary inductance spec, but the expense and winding difficulties for HF response on the bigger core usually limit the turns for SE, giving lower primary inductance and higher magnetizing current.
The hysteresis current becomes a distortion issue for high output impedance stages since the magnetizing current influences their output voltage. A lower output impedance stage (low Mu triode or local feedback pentode) can minimize the problem quite well. And it is not just the hysteresis component of the magnetizing current that causes distortion, the far bigger "linear" part of the magnetizing current is 90 degrees out of phase with the signal as well. P-P OTs typically have such high primary inductance that both issues are non-existant except for the poorest designed output stages. SE OTs typically have issues.
There is also the argument that SE OTs have more constant primary inductance due to the air gap and this is true. But it is a constant lower inductance, which is not good. Higher inductance simply removes the issue. Also, both types have a small linear (low hysteresis) range near zero AC signal, where the operating domains are not completely flipping, but rather are in a reversible "spring" like mode. This is helpful for low level signal quality, but the permeability is lower in this limited range. The P-P will show a large upswing in inductance as the signal grows above this (up until sat. effects start to bring it back down). While the SE will not, due to the air gap keeping it low. This might be the sonic origin of the zero crossing tales, but a low Z output stage will readily fix this. Nickel alloy pinstriping is another fix.
A parafeed OT operates in the same mode as a P-P OT, with no DC flux in the OT. Using a SE OT in parafeed mode will sound even better without its gap (ie. remove the gap spacer). A properly made P-P OT will then extend the upper bandwidth further by using fewer turns and less core for the same inductance. The SE OT in parafeed mode will also have huge voltage headroom, since it has twice as much flux capability without the DC present, this may well improve the sound some, but would simply be equivalent to using a 3X or 4X big P-P OT per the required Watts.
The usual simplistic talk about avoiding zero crossing in SE OTs is just salespeople talk. Who wouldn't love myths that sell more expensive OTs.
The hysteresis shows up as a non-linear magnetizing current, ie. in the primary inductance, not as direct distortion in the voltage conversion. Lower primary inductance means higher magnetizing current. Again, both SE and P-P could be similar if made to the same primary inductance spec, but the expense and winding difficulties for HF response on the bigger core usually limit the turns for SE, giving lower primary inductance and higher magnetizing current.
The hysteresis current becomes a distortion issue for high output impedance stages since the magnetizing current influences their output voltage. A lower output impedance stage (low Mu triode or local feedback pentode) can minimize the problem quite well. And it is not just the hysteresis component of the magnetizing current that causes distortion, the far bigger "linear" part of the magnetizing current is 90 degrees out of phase with the signal as well. P-P OTs typically have such high primary inductance that both issues are non-existant except for the poorest designed output stages. SE OTs typically have issues.
There is also the argument that SE OTs have more constant primary inductance due to the air gap and this is true. But it is a constant lower inductance, which is not good. Higher inductance simply removes the issue. Also, both types have a small linear (low hysteresis) range near zero AC signal, where the operating domains are not completely flipping, but rather are in a reversible "spring" like mode. This is helpful for low level signal quality, but the permeability is lower in this limited range. The P-P will show a large upswing in inductance as the signal grows above this (up until sat. effects start to bring it back down). While the SE will not, due to the air gap keeping it low. This might be the sonic origin of the zero crossing tales, but a low Z output stage will readily fix this. Nickel alloy pinstriping is another fix.
A parafeed OT operates in the same mode as a P-P OT, with no DC flux in the OT. Using a SE OT in parafeed mode will sound even better without its gap (ie. remove the gap spacer). A properly made P-P OT will then extend the upper bandwidth further by using fewer turns and less core for the same inductance. The SE OT in parafeed mode will also have huge voltage headroom, since it has twice as much flux capability without the DC present, this may well improve the sound some, but would simply be equivalent to using a 3X or 4X big P-P OT per the required Watts.
The usual simplistic talk about avoiding zero crossing in SE OTs is just salespeople talk. Who wouldn't love myths that sell more expensive OTs.
Last edited:
An article on transformers and measurement:
http://www.classicaudio.ru/articles/ot_distortion_p2_a57.pdf
http://www.classicaudio.ru/articles/ot_distortion_p2_a57.pdf
Hi Johann,
I meant to say rate/reversal of voltage change rather than magnetization. And english is my first language
Hi Michael
Spanish is my first language and the words confuse me all the time, imagine in English, and thinking so slowly, I find it hard.
I clarified that I quote the link in post # 17, not to look like boy star, but was very helpful to me, I was took some effort to make them, helped me design my own transformers, but can be useful to other, the formulas that appear in the books are not as accurate.And some are not listed anywhere.
For an Ideal loop where an AC current i(AC) flows with a voltage U(AC), from equation (20), the AC magnetic field is given by
B(AC) = [ U(AC) x 10^8 ] / [ sqr (2) * (Pi) * S * f ]
What you say is true in the saturation zone, but it is unavoidable.
However, both effects can be minimized, if view equation (32), causes the hysteresis loop is moved toward the first quadrant, reducing the area of the curve, then increase linearity, ofcourse we are talking about SE.
I prefer not to speak of magnetization, but that's the idea, you're right, and it is one of the secrets of the SE.
I apologize, as I have not how to draw, put the diagrams found on the web, almost mean nothing.
I have nothing against PP, I'm making a hybrid with BJT at the output.
The deeper truth is that... I hate transformers.
Best regards
Johann
Last edited:
Mine would kill me for much less than that !!!
Welcome to the club !!!
Best regards
Johann
Power?
I see many SE amps that use 6550 or similar high power tubes built to produce 5 watts. Is there some reason SE seem to be limited to low wattage? I found that Hammond sells half a dozen transformers in 30 watt and two with 75 watt ratings. This is done by paralleling tubes. TDSL says that at 400 plate volts a 6550 will produce 20 watts with 3K reflected impedance. I want to parallel two 6550 to produce @40 watts with a 1.5K impedance. Is there something in SE design fundamentals that makes this a bad idea?
I see many SE amps that use 6550 or similar high power tubes built to produce 5 watts. Is there some reason SE seem to be limited to low wattage? I found that Hammond sells half a dozen transformers in 30 watt and two with 75 watt ratings. This is done by paralleling tubes. TDSL says that at 400 plate volts a 6550 will produce 20 watts with 3K reflected impedance. I want to parallel two 6550 to produce @40 watts with a 1.5K impedance. Is there something in SE design fundamentals that makes this a bad idea?
Sorry guys a couple more questions? I rebuilt a Zenith SE EL84 console amp into an RH84.
It sounded wonderful but the power transformer ran pretty hot. To avoid this in my 6550 design I want to use a transformer rated 50% above the load. m And I want to use a toroid instead of an E-I. Does that make sense?
It sounded wonderful but the power transformer ran pretty hot. To avoid this in my 6550 design I want to use a transformer rated 50% above the load. m And I want to use a toroid instead of an E-I. Does that make sense?
There are many ways to lower distortion in an amp. Lowering distortion is EASY. We purposely do not do so for single-ended amps. It simply does not improve the sound in listening tests. In fact, in informal listening tests I've done, people generally pick the amp that gives the MOST distortion. They are tonally richer.
My 2W SET amp eats up 75W from the AC outlet. So it is not efficient at all, though 75W isn't exactly a power hog either.
I would highly recommend you build a SET amp for a bedroom/office. If you can find a good deal on the iron/tubes, then building one is rather cheap. In listening tests against my other amps, they always win. People don't know that it actually has the highest distortion of all my amps in my amp collection.
I would highly recommend you build a SET amp for a bedroom/office. If you can find a good deal on the iron/tubes, then building one is rather cheap. In listening tests against my other amps, they always win. People don't know that it actually has the highest distortion of all my amps in my amp collection.
I agree completely. In fact I would argue that harmonic distortion isn't really distortion at all. When transistors came along power was touted as their best argument. (When in reality it was cost.) And lowering of total harmonic distortion was their second best argument. But transistors sound flat and lifeless, to my ear. If the metric is reproduction of the input signal as faithfully as possible then transistors win hands down. But the fact is that the input signal is itself a distortion of live instruments and voices. And in my opinion when it comes to reproducing LIVE voices and instruments the harmonically distorted tube wins hands down. So I would argue with the label of distortion when applied to harmonic coloration of music.
I have a pair of Dynaco MarkIV's that have too much IM distortion. Which I find really displeasing. (Its a product of a poorly built front end which I will address this winter.)
So SE with its 0% IM is the way to go. But really not liking horns of any kind or weenie full range drivers I need an SE amp with real grunt. Hence the 40 watt 6550 SE amp. And if that works out a 100 watt KT120!
I have a pair of Dynaco MarkIV's that have too much IM distortion. Which I find really displeasing. (Its a product of a poorly built front end which I will address this winter.)
So SE with its 0% IM is the way to go. But really not liking horns of any kind or weenie full range drivers I need an SE amp with real grunt. Hence the 40 watt 6550 SE amp. And if that works out a 100 watt KT120!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.