Schematic: Audio Innovations, The first audio amplifier - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Tubes / Valves
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Tubes / Valves All about our sweet vacuum tubes :) Threads about Musical Instrument Amps of all kinds should be in the Instruments & Amps forum

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26th March 2009, 08:15 PM   #21
diyAudio Member
maartentje's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA, FL
Hi Guys,

guyser realy thnx for the schematics helps me alot!
I think when i look at the pictures from diyparadiso its the parallel version. Do you have some pictures from the inside of an orginal 2a3?

Thnx a lot

  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 01:24 AM   #22
tubino is offline tubino  United States
diyAudio Member
tubino's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Toledo, OH USA
Hi, I just stumbled this as I'm resurrecting a long-dormant Audio Innovations First. Can someone explain to me why the path to ground from filamentary cathode is so DIFFERENT for the two halves of each PP pair in this amp? Each pair of tubes has one with 39R resistors from each end of the filament joining then to cathode resistor, while the other half of each pair has a 50R pot with wiper to cathode resistor.

What is up with that???
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th February 2010, 06:34 AM   #23
diyAudio Member
kavermei's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lokeren, Belgium
Send a message via MSN to kavermei
It's sufficient to make the hum amplitude in the one tube equal to the hum in the other. The hum will then cancel out in the output transformer.

Never send a human to do a machine's job. --Agent Smith
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2016, 12:07 AM   #24
rmgvs is offline rmgvs  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Netherlands
Default phase splitter

Okay, this thread is dead for some time.

Referring to post #17 with schematics. Do I see it correctly that the (paraphase) phase splitter uses 47k and 44k resistors (so: not exactly the same values but slightly different)? Or is it just a typo or bad printing of the circuit?

Why are these values different? Of course I assume to make the phases more symmetrical and to obtain less distortion (assuming matched output pairs etc). But for every other phasesplitter-tube this will work out slightly different, is it?

As background:
- AI did use this arrangement many times. They always seem to use 220k/220k as splitter values (AI 500 etc).
- The First has seen different versions. In the latest version MK3 they have added a trim-pot of value 47k in between (the same) 47k resistors. Of course then it is possible to cancel out distortion etc using an oscilloscope. Then again Peter van Willenwaard points out that cancelling out will not give the best subjective results.

As I have a MK3 version I want to leave-out the trimpot so I can use different tubes without the need to calibrate every time again (no equipment to do that anyway). And I hope to hear the better subjective results? I just tried this 'mod' but to be honest can't hear any differency. I keep using 47k/47k as they were already there. Should I change to 44k for one of them?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2016, 08:09 AM   #25
diyAudio Member
soulmerchant's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Near Zurich
Hi rmgvs

Phase splitting does not need to be perfect to work. I would keep it as is. There are other ways to improve this circuit, such as by using constant current sources and some mods to the PSU if you feel inclined.

Unfortunately, the chassis precludes many potential mods. Its a tight fit already.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2016, 08:36 AM   #26
rmgvs is offline rmgvs  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Netherlands
Default in the middle?

Thanks for your feedback Soulmerchant.

Would you suggest to put the pot in the middle-position? Just to go better with different tubes without having to fiddle every time?

BTW: now the pot (from factory settings) is in 33k / 14k position (totalling 47k), both channels.

And if true that it doesn't matter that much: why not taking out the pot altogether? It's a cheap small pot that can't do much good to the sound, is it? So: in that case we go back to the former circuit of post #16?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2016, 09:34 AM   #27
Ketje is offline Ketje  Belgium
diyAudio Member
Ketje's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Flanders
In that schematic the 44k and 47k are inverted.
If you put the 44k where the 47k drawn then the other resistance (Rfb) becomes
44k x (30+1)/(30-1) = ~ 47k where 30 is the (approx) gain of the ECC88.
That is without taking the gridleak (220k) into account, big enough to forget.You can even leave it out.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2016, 10:13 AM   #28
rmgvs is offline rmgvs  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Netherlands
Default ecc82

Thanks Ketje, that makes sense.

Actually, in this MK3 version ECC82's are used. So the factor would become (20+1)/(20-1) without taking into account the grid resistor. And that is assuming exactly same gains from the two halves of the triode.

So 47k becomes 48k5 (against 44k).

Given all kinds of tolerances (resistors with tolerance of 5% could just as well be 45k or 49k assuming no matching has been done), no problem at all to use 47k/47k or 100k/100k or whatever.

And not taking into account that all things perfectly matched and distortion cancelled out will sound kind of clinical. Why? This is asserted here: (in dutch). See attachment taken from that link.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ScreenShot532.jpg (148.1 KB, 116 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2016, 12:41 PM   #29
Ketje is offline Ketje  Belgium
diyAudio Member
Ketje's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Flanders
There is nothing assymetrical about it.The lower triode must just perform a minus one gain.If it had a very big gain itself the two resistor can be equal.To get the voltage needed at the grid there is a difference.Unfortionally the gain of a tube varies with signal and so the resistors are only right on one point of operation.The greater the gain of the tube the better result, so an ECC82 isn't the best choice the ECC83 does much better job here but doesn't have much drive capablilities.

Last edited by Ketje; 12th July 2016 at 12:45 PM.
  Reply With Quote


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
audio innovations 200 rmgvs Tubes / Valves 9 13th March 2013 03:08 PM
Audio Innovations 800C schematic or even better service manual? Mayday Tubes / Valves 12 2nd January 2007 06:09 PM
Audio Innovations L-2 fernando Tubes / Valves 5 13th August 2005 06:53 AM
Audio Innovations 800 mk1 ChrisW Tubes / Valves 0 6th July 2004 09:03 PM
Audio Note Kageki vs. EAR 859 vs. Audio Innovations: The First Vortex Tubes / Valves 1 2nd February 2004 12:31 AM

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:10 AM.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2017 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2