Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki 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

Topology for Schade
Topology for Schade
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 19th September 2010, 10:22 PM   #1
TheGimp is offline TheGimp  United States
diyAudio Member
TheGimp's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Johnson City, TN
Default Topology for Schade

I'm working on my Webcor amp that I pulled from a console and now that I've got it completely rebuilt I'm thinking about Schade feedback.


The topology is basically an input triode gain stage with global feedback to a cathode resistor, followed by a concertina phases plitter driving the output tubes (12AB5).

It seems to me that this topology is not suitable for Schade feedback, and either I need to follow the concertina splitter with cathode followers, or I need to use an LTP to allow me to feedback to the same impedance for both output tubes.

Is there any way to use Schade feedback with a concertina splitter directly driving the output tubes?
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2010, 10:56 PM   #2
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2007
As I understand it Schade feedback is simply a new name for the anode follower, which in turn is the valve forerunner of the inverting opamp configuration. For a P-P pair each must see a signal coming from the same source impedance. LTP phase splitter is the simplest way to provide this. If you use a pair of CF then you will need a largish build-out resistor for each so you are almost throwing away the benefit of a CF.
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2010, 11:29 PM   #3
smoking-amp is offline smoking-amp  United States
diyAudio Member
smoking-amp's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hickory, NC
One way to preserve the concertina splitter would be to connect it's plate load resistor to a P type current mirror (connected to B+). Then a matched load resistor from the mirror drain back down to Gnd. Then take the two Hi-Z outputs off the concertina plate and the mirror drain. Should be almost matched Z for the Schade feedbacks. The concertina (triode) will have some finite plate impedance, so some lowering of the mirror load resistor needed to compensate, or replace the concertina itself with an N Mosfet to get hi Zout there too.

Hmmm, on second thought, this would introduce twice the neg. feedback to one side (mirror out) as to the other (concertina plate out) since the current input to the mirror gets affected.

All you really need is to just use one Schade feedback to the INPUT of the concertina.

Last edited by smoking-amp; 19th September 2010 at 11:59 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 01:40 AM   #4
mashaffer is offline mashaffer  United States
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Indiana
Ooo.. Smoking amp, that is an interesting idea. I will watch with interest.
Generic Signature
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 01:43 AM   #5
kenpeter is offline kenpeter  United States
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dallas
Schade IMHO: is the transformation of high impedance Pentode
curves to lower impedance Triode curves, by local nfeedback.

Of course, you need to make sure your nfeedback is of the sort
that helps linearize output voltage, rather than output current.
And should be of lowest phase shift, preferably direct coupled.

Its a little uncertain what is Schade and what is not in a push
pull amplifier? Cause opposing plate voltages are also coupled
by the output transformer. The nfeedback to each Pentode is
never pure like Schade's infamous "Fig35", a completely single
ended example. Then again, push-pull blended plate feedback
might still be a valid transform to triodes with similarly coupled

I don't see a problem with GNF as Schade as long as its kept
less than one pole of phase shift. Throw two or more poles at
the loop, and you got potential problems of a Williamson...

I agree with Post #2, new name for same old anode follower.
However, Schade proved and made obvious exactly why this
should be equivalent to a Triode. And strongly hinted to the
method by which Mu is formed inside a real triode.

Last edited by kenpeter; 20th September 2010 at 02:01 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 08:51 AM   #6
Ian444 is offline Ian444  Australia
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane QLD
I've been pondering how effective an unbypassed cathode resistor on an output tube is for local feedback (PP or SE). If the grid 1 signal was say 15VRMS and at that input level you have say 1VRMS on the (unbypassed) cathode of the output tube, are you achieving some useful local feedback? Of course to get that scenario you would need a combination of fixed bias and cathode bias, since the cathode resistor would be small. I feel this may be relevant to the topic in that it may be an alternative to Schade for amps where Schade feedback is difficult to implement, other than using GNFB. I could be totally on the wrong track too, hence the question.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 11:25 AM   #7
kenpeter is offline kenpeter  United States
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dallas
Unbypassed cathode resistor increases current linearity and plate resistance,
decreases Gm, does nothing to externally reconnect Mu broken by the screen.
Indeed, if any Mu still exists, actively fights against it having any influence.

If you stand that cathode upon a transformer output, and tolerate some very
small amount of DC: Parasitic cathode winding resistance creates exactly the
same situation given above. Plate resistance increases, no Triode, no Schade.
The small resistance here definately not helping us Schadewise.

But check voltage divider from the plate to the cathode created by inductance!
Now here we got Schade, bigtime. A positive voltage swing fed back to cathode
is exactly equivalent to a negative swing fed back to grid... Way more than the
winding resistance is fighting. With Mu effectively reconnected, Triode happens.
Plate resistance decreases dramatically. Schade used transformer voltage divider
(coupling to the grid) in his example...

Examine output of ARC ST-70-C3. The 4 ohm tap is grounded, 0 and 16 taps
abused for cathode windings. I don't know how well DC will balance into 4 or
8 ohm loads? But ought to be in very good cancellation for the full 16 out.
You gotta have an output transformer anyway, basically a freebie, take it!

This scheme is more or less direct coupled. One pole of phase shift at worst...
Unless'n you got some really weird transformer parasitics. And we ain't talkin'
like Williamson, where you add one or two more caps of shift, and magnify the
chance for problems by an entire triode worth of gain added to that long loop.

Last edited by kenpeter; 20th September 2010 at 11:53 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 06:01 PM   #8
smoking-amp is offline smoking-amp  United States
diyAudio Member
smoking-amp's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hickory, NC
On the idea of keeping the Concertina in place, both Schade feedbacks (from output plates) could be implemented, I think. One S fdbk would be sent to the Concertina input (grid), and the other sent to the bottom of the Concertina cathode load resistor. Ie, that Schade feedback divider would have its low value resistor inserted under the Concertina cathode resistor to ground. The other Schade feedback (to the Concertina grid) would depend on the previous input tube's plate resistor for dividing down feedback. The Concertina plate resistor might need a little tweek to get the two Concertina output levels matched then. The Schade feedback resistors will have an apparent assymetry, due to the low resistance needed in the Concertina cathode circuit, versus the high resistance needed in the C grid circuit. But functionally, they both provide the same attenuation ratio of the two feedbacks.

This would have the advantage of using both Schade feedbacks from the output tube plates equally, no feedback having to pass through the OT then (as for the single fdbk to the Concertina grid case), so OT xfmr frequency anomalies would be kept out of the loops. Seems workable, anyone see problems?

Edit: I think I see a minor issue that can be fixed. The small value feedback divider resistor placed below the Concertina cathode load is effectively adding in additional neg. feedback to that output side due to its series connection. (beside the required neg. fdbk to the Concertina grid-cathode V diff.). This can be fixed by increasing the Schade fdbk attenuation a little (ie, raising the Schade feedback resistor value on that side) so the net neg. fdbk is equal for both Concertina outputs. Experiments probably required. (or Sim. it)

Last edited by smoking-amp; 20th September 2010 at 06:29 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 06:44 PM   #9
smoking-amp is offline smoking-amp  United States
diyAudio Member
smoking-amp's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hickory, NC
Seems the series Concertina cathode feedback resistor is actually REDUCING the neg. feedback for that side's output effectively, so the Schade feedback resistor needs some decreasing in value on that side. This needs some Simulation now for sure to see if this can work out for equal neg. feedback to each side. I guess if it doesn't work out, we would have another way to get SE sound from P-P.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2010, 07:05 PM   #10
Wavebourn is offline Wavebourn  United States
Designer & Technologist
diyAudio Member
Wavebourn's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Topology for Schade
You can borrow mine.

The first tube (triode-pentode) is ECF200, LTP driver tubes are 6J51P (may be substituted by 6P15P), output tubes are GU-50
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Pyramid-VII-OS.jpg (316.8 KB, 705 views)
Nothing in the universe is perfect. The ideal things are the ones that are most optimal. Optimization criteria, what matters. When I hear "No Compromise Design", I want to take a sledgehammer and test how impact-proof it is.
  Reply With Quote


Topology for SchadeHide 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

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
O.H. Schade (1938) meets MOSFET revintage Pass Labs 43 11th November 2012 07:56 PM
DC7 MkII :New Schade 6080 amp. Shoog Tubes / Valves 31 23rd April 2011 07:28 PM
What if O.H. Schade had MOSFETs? Michael Koster Tubes / Valves 30 18th January 2011 03:53 PM
To Schade it , or not.. Mosquito Tubes / Valves 6 5th September 2010 10:23 AM
Iron LTP Schade-PP revintage Tubes / Valves 3 4th October 2009 08:53 PM

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:11 AM.

Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 15.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2018 diyAudio