Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Tubes / Valves

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th April 2003, 10:16 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sylmar, CA. USA
Default CASCODE

If I were gonna build a phono preamp I would build somthing like this http://thunderstoneaudio.nav.to/

The main thing is a nice FET cascode with a high gm tube.

Robert Morin
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2003, 10:44 PM   #12
diyAudio Senior Member
 
fdegrove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
Default Goes To Show...

Hi,

Quote:
But these are pretty minor quibbles. And the way this is set up, a CCS will definitely cause the EQ to be off-spec. If you retrim, the sensitivity of EQ to tube parameters will be even worse. And CCS will reduce the bandwidth.
Everyones' demands and expectations are different of course but...if you care about vinyl a correct RIAA correction (no pun intended) is first on your list.
A correction that is going to deviate from that norm whenever the tubes age or when you use a different brand is just not cutting it in my book.
And, having to trim filter caps and Rs in that department requires more knowledge than the average DIY posesses let alone let alone the assumption of them having a decent inverse RIAA network.

CCS will reduce the bandwidth noticeably on a 12AX7A input tube
for the simple reason that it optimises gain.
Nothing ever comes free and tacking on a CCS on a phono preamp that was not designed for it is definitely going to mess up the deviation from RIAA correction.

If the guys at bottlehead haven't realised this yet then I question their ability as designers.

Quote:
1. 12AX7s. Not a great tube in the first hole for reasons of noise and bandwidth.
While I agree that there are better tubes out there, a manufacturer, even only just for a kit or two, is rather restricted in his choices.
If and when the operating points + the RIAA correction are chosen carefuly neither noise floor nor bandwidth are limited at all.

Let's not forget that this RIAA filter is there to reduce highs and boost bass so if we obtain a 30KHz+ open loop here, we're O.K. when using some active EQ.
For passive EQ filters a tube such as the wideband 6DJ8 may be a better choice.

I'm not saying it's easier to use a 12AX7A but hardly any more difficult than taming the equally silly 6DJ8 in this application.
Meaning that both need a thorough understanding of their idiosyncracies to sound fine.
:cool

Cheers,
__________________
Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2003, 11:26 PM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oregon, USA
fdegrove said:

Quote:
Nothing ever comes free and tacking on a CCS on a phono preamp that was not designed for it is definitely going to mess up the deviation from RIAA correction.

If the guys at bottlehead haven't realised this yet then I question their ability as designers.
pedroskova said:

Quote:
Mr. Joppa designed the RIAA network to accept the ccs with no changes(the riaa curve is barely effected).
I'm confused. Are the two statements talking about different things? If not, then it looks like the RIAA circuit was designed keeping a future CCS in mind (assuming it is possible to design that way), right? Just trying to understand if the two of you are talking about the same thing or not.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2003, 11:40 PM   #14
diyAudio Senior Member
 
fdegrove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
Default CONFUSING.

Hi,

Quote:
Are the two statements talking about different things? If not, then it looks like the RIAA circuit was designed keeping a future CCS in mind
No, but how can you keep a correct RIAA EQ and design for the next thing?

What they meant is that to them at least the addition of a CCS does not upset the RIAA correction too much.

Bottom line is, how much deviation do you accept as a user?

Me, I'd rather keep it as close as possible to what was used at the recording process.
Which is what I hinted at when I said:

Quote:
Everyones' demands and expectations are different of course but...if you care about vinyl a correct RIAA correction (no pun intended) is first on your list.
Hope that clarifies it,
__________________
Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2003, 11:45 PM   #15
EC8010 is offline EC8010  United Kingdom
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
EC8010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Near London. UK
Default Making a good RIAA stage is hard.

That's why there are different views. You cannot "mix and match." Once you have made a single choice, it affects everythingelse...
__________________
The loudspeaker: The only commercial Hi-Fi item where a disproportionate part of the budget isn't spent on the box. And the one where it would make a difference...
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2003, 11:46 PM   #16
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
For a get-started circuit, I'd drop the idea of trying to do anything fancy. There's plenty of time for that later on. I'm very happy with my passive-eq tube-FET hybrid circuit with DC servo'ed output, but I wouldn't recomend it to a novice builder, especially because it uses such hard-to-get tubes.

Start simple. Build one of the many PAS-3 variants out there. You're limited to 12AX7s, but feedback EQ is going to be much less dependent on tube parameters. And they sound just fine if you take some care in parts choice (that doesn't mean fashion parts!) and construction.

One step up in fanciness is Joe Curcio's circuits, with which people have had excellent success.
__________________
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2003, 12:17 AM   #17
diyAudio Senior Member
 
fdegrove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
Default PHONO MADNESS OR CULT STATUS?

Hi,

Quote:
One step up in fanciness is Joe Curcio's circuits, with which people have had excellent success.
If Mr.Curcio wants to relive his GA days?

Are those schems public domain?

Anyway, the way I look at those circuits is that they're very well implemented and benefit from very good PSU design.

No doubt in my mind that Mr.Curcio agrees on the importance of PSU design even in the smallest of corners (so people think).

For those still in doubt, I strongly adhere to the philosophy that any circuit is only as good as its' PSU.

Cheers,

/regging the revs.
__________________
Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2003, 12:18 AM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oregon, USA
Interesting that you quoted my statement up to a point but left out the next question I asked Here's what I said:

Quote:
If not, then it looks like the RIAA circuit was designed keeping a future CCS in mind (assuming it is possible to design that way)
So what you're saying is that it's not possible to build such a circuit. Or, it is, but then the compromise one has to settle for is reduced RIAA accuracy. Thanks, that is the information I was looking for.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2003, 12:25 AM   #19
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
When you change to a CCS, you change the source impedance and bandwidth of the stage. If the load is the passive EQ, the EQ will change. The only way to avoid this with a passive EQ is to buffer the driving stage, retrim the EQ to account for the changed source Z and bandwidth, or chuck the passive circuit and go for feedback EQ. As you might gather, I'm pretty lukewarm on retrofitting a CCS. It will not benefit a properly designed circuit.

I would agree in principle with Frank- this is a low level stage with lousy PSRR- noise and stability of the power supply rails are critical. Low noise and accurate EQ are the sines qua non of a good phono stage.
__________________
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th April 2003, 12:26 AM   #20
diyAudio Senior Member
 
fdegrove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
Default FRANKIE KNOWS WHAT FRANKIE DOES.

Hi,

Quote:
Interesting that you quoted my statement up to a point but left out the next question I asked
Yuppie, for that's the breaker...it's correct (up to their chosen design point) one way or the other.

Guess you figured it out on your own..good for you.

Ciao,
__________________
Frank
  Reply With Quote

Reply


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
DIY phono to replace roksan phono stage seroxatmad Analog Line Level 6 14th December 2008 05:46 PM
Seduction or Cornet for phono??? cbutterworth Tubes / Valves 13 14th June 2007 09:52 AM
Should I replace Scott 222C phono stage with Claret phono stage? Bing Yang Analogue Source 0 22nd August 2005 06:41 AM
FS: Bottlehead Foreplay line stage jim_vt Swap Meet 4 19th May 2005 08:16 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:35 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2