Hashimoto A-105 - 6S4A

jazzbo · 2nd October 2008, 04:52 PM

6S4A vs. 6S4A regulated plate voltage frequency response with the A-105. Wasn't expecting this much difference...

jazzbo · 2nd October 2008, 04:55 PM

20 -27K looks good but the loss of gain is too high, about 13V/V with a 20K load.

jazzbo · 2nd October 2008, 04:57 PM

Still sufficient gain and the peaking is manageable... Gain down to ~18V/V.

andyjevans · 3rd October 2008, 09:28 AM

Did you listen to the alternatives above?

I'm curious because I'm using the 6S4 as a driver and indeed as an output tube in PPP.

Should I be expecting bass rolloff?

Andy

jazzbo · 3rd October 2008, 11:11 AM

I'm still testing driver candidates, so haven't listened to anything yet. The amp will be an IT coupled 300B SE. The 6C45Pi is the last tube in the list, though I may go and fiddle with the 46 again.

So far the successful candidates are the 6S4A, 12BH7 and the ECC99 with loaded secondary. I would like to stay with a tube that has sufficient gain for a two stage amp.

The 6S4A is down 1dB at 30Hz through the IT. Will you notice this? Possibly, depending on your speaker response et al. I played with bypass cap values on the ECC99 and found that you can tweak the low end response somewhat by using smaller than ideal values, which produces a low frequency resonance and a slightly tilted up low end response. I haven't tried that with the 6S4A.

andyjevans · 3rd October 2008, 02:20 PM

If you want the best sounding driver for the 300b, then in my opinion - and that of several other listeners in a shootout with 26, 46 and 2a3 - it's the 10Y. The 46 probably second best.

Andy

kevinkr · 3rd October 2008, 03:58 PM

I'm wondering whether using a series RC network in parallel with either the primary (reducing HF load and hence gain) or secondary (here as a load) might be a worthwhile experiment.

I have also heard in some cases lately that people are using tubes with much higher rp's than would normally be the case (for a given primary impedance) to drive IT transformers precisely because of the ultrasonic rise in response. (A number of people in my local tube group have been using IT for a long time and have used this approach successfully.) It does place rather onerous demands on primary inductance and transformer construction particularly to reduce interwinding capacitances.

Some additional R in series with the primary will also reduce the ultrasonic resonance at the expense of overall gain as will higher winding resistances.

jazzbo · 3rd October 2008, 04:13 PM

Kevin, that's why I'm leaning toward the 6S4A (rp = 3.7K) and 12BH7 (rp = 5.3K), little or no HF peaking and sufficient gain for my purposes. As you state, any type of loading will reduce gain. The flattest response from let's say 40Hz - 10kHz is the ECC99 so I will continue to play with secondary loading and try a series RC across the secondary.

Have any of your IT users commented on the sound of a higher rp tube versus lower rp with it's HF peaking? Does it tend to harden the sound? I may try something in the 6 -7K range at a lower current to maximize the inductance of the IT.

I've got a 6C45Pi in circuit now. I believe the rp is <1K so I may try low current (15 mA or so) and parallel the windings. This will reduce the inductance of the A-105 to ~15H. We'll see what happens.

kevinkr · 3rd October 2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jazzbo
Kevin, that's why I'm leaning toward the 6S4A (rp = 3.7K) and 12BH7 (rp = 5.3K), little or no HF peaking and sufficient gain for my purposes. As you state, any type of loading will reduce gain. The flattest response from let's say 40Hz - 10kHz is the ECC99 so I will continue to play with secondary loading and try a series RC across the secondary.

Have any of your IT users commented on the sound of a higher rp tube versus lower rp with it's HF peaking? Does it tend to harden the sound? I may try something in the 6 -7K range at a lower current to maximize the inductance of the IT.

I've got a 6C45Pi in circuit now. I believe the rp is <1K so I may try low current (15 mA or so) and parallel the windings. This will reduce the inductance of the A-105 to ~15H. We'll see what happens.

Sounds like you are proceeding down the same line of thought.. Haven't heard anything about hardening of the sound using higher rp tubes to drive a given transformer.

Should be interesting to see what happens with the 6C45pi and parallel windings. I would think that the 5842 would be pretty reasonable in this configuration as well and at about the same current.

Your experiments are quite interesting to me because I am trying to decide whether I will use an IT in my next amplifier which is contemplated to be VT4C running in A2.. My last IT coupled design wasn't entirely to my liking although my client liked it well enough.. (Tango iron)

jazzbo · 3rd October 2008, 05:21 PM

Kevin, I meant does the tube with the lower rp and HF peaking harden the sound...

I've read (RDH4?) that loading the secondary increases transformer distortion. kmaier says no, it lowers it. Any opinion on this?

3rd October 2008, 03:58 PM	#7
kevinkr diyAudio Moderator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Blog Entries: 6	I'm wondering whether using a series RC network in parallel with either the primary (reducing HF load and hence gain) or secondary (here as a load) might be a worthwhile experiment. I have also heard in some cases lately that people are using tubes with much higher rp's than would normally be the case (for a given primary impedance) to drive IT transformers precisely because of the ultrasonic rise in response. (A number of people in my local tube group have been using IT for a long time and have used this approach successfully.) It does place rather onerous demands on primary inductance and transformer construction particularly to reduce interwinding capacitances. Some additional R in series with the primary will also reduce the ultrasonic resonance at the expense of overall gain as will higher winding resistances. __________________ "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Has anyone tried a 6S4A as a 300B driver tube?	MIKET	Tubes / Valves	29	11th May 2012 04:58 PM
Hashimoto A-105 - summary so far	jazzbo	Tubes / Valves	3	24th September 2008 09:31 PM
Hashimoto H-20-7U for 6v6 in triode SE..?	JandG	Tubes / Valves	1	9th June 2008 02:26 PM
5670 SRPP DC coupled to 6S4A	alexg	Tubes / Valves	7	5th June 2008 12:30 AM
6s4a as driver for 6as7 in SEAmp	alejo	Tubes / Valves	8	23rd December 2004 09:08 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	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

3rd October 2008, 09:28 AM	#4
andyjevans diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: London	Did you listen to the alternatives above? I'm curious because I'm using the 6S4 as a driver and indeed as an output tube in PPP. Should I be expecting bass rolloff? Andy

3rd October 2008, 11:11 AM	#5
jazzbo diyAudio Member Join Date: May 2007	I'm still testing driver candidates, so haven't listened to anything yet. The amp will be an IT coupled 300B SE. The 6C45Pi is the last tube in the list, though I may go and fiddle with the 46 again. So far the successful candidates are the 6S4A, 12BH7 and the ECC99 with loaded secondary. I would like to stay with a tube that has sufficient gain for a two stage amp. The 6S4A is down 1dB at 30Hz through the IT. Will you notice this? Possibly, depending on your speaker response et al. I played with bypass cap values on the ECC99 and found that you can tweak the low end response somewhat by using smaller than ideal values, which produces a low frequency resonance and a slightly tilted up low end response. I haven't tried that with the 6S4A.

3rd October 2008, 02:20 PM	#6
andyjevans diyAudio Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: London	If you want the best sounding driver for the 300b, then in my opinion - and that of several other listeners in a shootout with 26, 46 and 2a3 - it's the 10Y. The 46 probably second best. Andy

3rd October 2008, 04:13 PM	#8
jazzbo diyAudio Member Join Date: May 2007	Kevin, that's why I'm leaning toward the 6S4A (rp = 3.7K) and 12BH7 (rp = 5.3K), little or no HF peaking and sufficient gain for my purposes. As you state, any type of loading will reduce gain. The flattest response from let's say 40Hz - 10kHz is the ECC99 so I will continue to play with secondary loading and try a series RC across the secondary. Have any of your IT users commented on the sound of a higher rp tube versus lower rp with it's HF peaking? Does it tend to harden the sound? I may try something in the 6 -7K range at a lower current to maximize the inductance of the IT. I've got a 6C45Pi in circuit now. I believe the rp is <1K so I may try low current (15 mA or so) and parallel the windings. This will reduce the inductance of the A-105 to ~15H. We'll see what happens.

3rd October 2008, 05:21 PM	#10
jazzbo diyAudio Member Join Date: May 2007	Kevin, I meant does the tube with the lower rp and HF peaking harden the sound... I've read (RDH4?) that loading the secondary increases transformer distortion. kmaier says no, it lowers it. Any opinion on this?