|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| 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 |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2003
|
Hello,
I have a theoretical question. Let's say that I wanted to purchase an inexpensive PP OPT, but wanted to avoid some of the winding imbalance issues (different Z) that seem to be associated with these. Could I not simply use two smaller SE transformers, primaries connected in series to yield a center tap, and secondaries connected in parallel? I recognize that I would probably have to juggle impedance and power ratings to yield something feasible. Your thoughts appreciated! |
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Alps:Tube amp designs over 150W, SMPS guru.
|
Quote:
Nup....Amperés 3 finger magnetic torque rule. For push pull You require a common core with BOTH primary halves wound opposite directions to cancel the magnetic flux created from each half. Remember what the phasesplitter does ? ce tout richj |
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Quote:
An SE transformer requires a relatively large air gap to function. Since DC flux is not canceled, it requires a larger core for the same base response. This also degrades the high frequency response by adding more turns. Bottom line, 2 larger, more expensive SE transformers with more compromises substituting for 1 smaller push-pull transformer. If I was going to propose an alternate solution, para-fed the transformer and use either plate chokes or CCS. The CSS requires twice the voltage as the transformer or plate choke, and twice the voltage is about 4 times as costly power supply. This offends my Scots ancestry, but may not bother you. The plate chokes also add cost, and require an additional coupling cap. YMMV Doug
__________________
Scienta sine ars nihil est - Science without Art is nothing. (Implies the converse as well) Mater tua criceta fuit, et pater tuo redoluit bacarum sambucus
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Quote:
For audio, that might be a "quick 'n' dirty" solution, but for sonic excellence, that dawg ain't gonna hunt. You can either go OTL (which has problems of its own) or bite the bullet and get a decent OPT. |
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2003
|
Quote:
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Theoretical question concerning SPL /driver matching | p0lar | Multi-Way | 13 | 8th October 2008 10:11 PM |
| Theoretical sub/sat integation question | morbo | Subwoofers | 0 | 28th September 2005 10:37 PM |
| Horns theoretical question | johninCR | Multi-Way | 9 | 16th November 2004 11:08 AM |
| Theoretical SPL vs distance | Cal Weldon | Multi-Way | 12 | 5th May 2004 01:59 PM |
| theoretical question.... | weissi | Digital Source | 15 | 23rd May 2003 05:00 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |