• WARNING: Tube/Valve amplifiers use potentially LETHAL HIGH VOLTAGES.
    Building, troubleshooting and testing of these amplifiers should only be
    performed by someone who is thoroughly familiar with
    the safety precautions around high voltages.

Sanity Check - Input Transformer Overshoot

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Hello all, just checking my logic.

I have built a 26 preamp using an LL1676 input transformer. I was able to nicely damp the transformer ringing on square waves using a 2nF+850ohm RC network, but I still had about 25% overshoot on the very front of the waveform when feeding the transformer from my function generator (Zout=50ohms).

Adding a 950ohm resistor in series with the + input to the transformer completely killed the overshoot and resulted in a near-perfect square wave. The total effective output impedance of my function generator was now 50ohm + 950ohm = 1000ohm, to achieve a perfect square wave. Of course, all my sources will have different output impedances, for example my CD player has 200ohms and my phono stage has 400ohms.

I'm thinking that the best way to handle this would be adding extra resistance to the outputs of my sources so that their total output impedance always = 1000ohms (so for the CD player that would be 800 ohms+the normal 200ohms, for the phono stage that would be 600ohms plus the normal 400 ohms) instead of adding resistance to the input transformer. In this way, no matter the source I'll always have the correct impedance for a perfect square wave.

Correct??
 
The LL1676 datasheet says it is for 600ohm source and 10K load, when wired for 1:4 mode. In this case it would present a load impedance of 600ohms, so not for normal domestic stereo line stage use but receiving from a balanced line. If you wired it as 1:1, then my guess is that it would match 2.5k to 2.5k - again quite unsuitable for normal line stage use.

So how are you using it? My guess is that you are seeing the HF resonance at 70kHz.
 
The LL1676 datasheet says it is for 600ohm source and 10K load, when wired for 1:4 mode. In this case it would present a load impedance of 600ohms, so not for normal domestic stereo line stage use but receiving from a balanced line. If you wired it as 1:1, then my guess is that it would match 2.5k to 2.5k - again quite unsuitable for normal line stage use.

So how are you using it? My guess is that you are seeing the HF resonance at 70kHz.

It's wired backwards from the datasheet at 2:1, in a 2||2:1||1 setup. In this way I get suitable input voltage from a line source, I can invert the phase to compensate for the inversion of the 26 tube, and I get galvanic isolation to prevent ground loops (it's really a quiet preamp!). Input impedance measures 74kohms at 100Hz, and frequency response is flat below the limit of my spectrum analyzer (10Hz).

I'm happy with the sound as is but would like to get rid of the overshoot and have succeeded with the added input resistance as described above, so I'm just checking my logic that adding resistance to each source may be the best way to do that.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking that the best way to handle this would be adding extra resistance to the outputs of my sources so that their total output impedance always = 1000ohms (so for the CD player that would be 800 ohms+the normal 200ohms, for the phono stage that would be 600ohms plus the normal 400 ohms) instead of adding resistance to the input transformer. In this way, no matter the source I'll always have the correct impedance for a perfect square wave.

IF you went this route, it would be better to insert the resistors at the inputs of your preamp, rather than the outputs of your sources, so they won't negatively interact with the capacitance your interconnects.
 
I think your problem may be that you are just using it in too high an impedance situation. As wired, it would want to match 2.5k to 600ohms - far too low for normal line stage use. As the HF resonance is well away from the audio band you can probably run at a bit higher impedance, say 5k to 1.2k or even 10k to 2.4k. This is still quite low for a line stage. Your 74k input presumably means you have something like 18k load on the output. Make this much smaller.

Adding a snubber will make the input impedance become rather reactive.

You really need either a higher impedance transformer, or no transformer at all.
 
IF you went this route, it would be better to insert the resistors at the inputs of your preamp, rather than the outputs of your sources, so they won't negatively interact with the capacitance your interconnects.

Ah, I thought there might be a reason not to put it at the sources, but couldn't put my finger on it. Thanks, that answers my question...I'll put 800ohms at the input and be done with it. Thanks!
 
I think your problem may be that you are just using it in too high an impedance situation. As wired, it would want to match 2.5k to 600ohms - far too low for normal line stage use. As the HF resonance is well away from the audio band you can probably run at a bit higher impedance, say 5k to 1.2k or even 10k to 2.4k. This is still quite low for a line stage. Your 74k input presumably means you have something like 18k load on the output. Make this much smaller.

Adding a snubber will make the input impedance become rather reactive.

You really need either a higher impedance transformer, or no transformer at all.

You're right. I need a purely resistive load of about 1k for a smooth response, but the input impedance is way too low then. Using an RC with a corner frequency of 94k takes care of the ringing without affecting the audio range. Adding the series resistance fixes the remaining overshoot to give a nice square wave at 2kHz.

Maybe a little unorthodox, but it sounds good.
 
Here's how a 10KHz square wave looks on the LL1676 wired 2||2:1||1 with no load, with an RC of 2nF and 850 ohms on the secondary, and with the RC plus 950 ohms in series with the primary.

I think the third pic looks pretty good! Input impedance measured with LCR meter at 83Kohms at 100Hz.
 

Attachments

  • LL1676 2to1 no snubber.jpg
    LL1676 2to1 no snubber.jpg
    253.4 KB · Views: 321
  • LL1676 2to1 with 2nF and 850ohms on secondary.jpg
    LL1676 2to1 with 2nF and 850ohms on secondary.jpg
    260.1 KB · Views: 303
  • LL1676 2to1 with 2nF and 850ohms on sec and 950ohms on primary.jpg
    LL1676 2to1 with 2nF and 850ohms on sec and 950ohms on primary.jpg
    243.2 KB · Views: 295
Why do people insist on using a square wave frequency of 10K? With the harmonics involved in making up a square wave, you are demanding a transformer have a usable flat bandpass of 100KHz or more. This is beyond the capabilities of a Lundahl LL1676. A 2KHz square wave is the proper frequency that will equate out to 20KHz.

If your signal generator has an output impedance of 50 ohms, then you should use a 50 ohm characeristic cable and terminate that cable, where it enters the device under test, in 50 ohms. Anything else higher will invite aberrations like overshoot. Any padding to compensate the waveform is unreliable because it may mask an underlying condition.
 
The picture for a 2kHz square wave looks the same, just more compressed in the front of the waveform. I used 10kHz for the pictures because it's easier to see the ringing and the improvement on that scale.

When I run the signal generator cable directly to the scope probe I get a perfect square wave - any anomalies from the generator/cable pair should show up there, right?


.
 
Last edited:
The ringing shown in your last picture is very minor, very high in frequency, seriously doubtful that you'll hear it. BUT... you've beautifully demonstrated how these circuits do have to be tuned for certain source impedances, and dropping the bandwidth (in exchange for getting zero overshoot) by secondary loading will make that a bit less critical.
 
Yes, I'm happy with the way things look in the last picture - can't let my OCD take over...

I'm pretty sure that little bit of ringing left has to do with the leakage inductance of the Faraday shield between the windings. When I disconnect the shield from ground it disappears almost completely. I think I'll live with the little bit of inaudible ringing, though, for the improved common mode rejection the shield provides.
 
...BUT... you've beautifully demonstrated how these circuits do have to be tuned for certain source impedances, and dropping the bandwidth (in exchange for getting zero overshoot) by secondary loading will make that a bit less critical.

SY, this statement is SO true. I added an 800R resistor to the + inputs of the LL1676 input transformers, and the difference is profound.

The improvement in the sound is so startling that I had to recheck it on three different listening occassions just to be sure - and it's real. Going from the 10kHz square wave in picture #2 to the one in picture #3 above cleans up everything about the sound...from the deep bass all the way to the highest treble. It's remarkable!

In this case, the 10kHz square wave was the perfect diagnostic tool. Now, my digital source runs at 192/24 and has selectable low pass filtering from the standard CD brick wall at 22kHz to no filter at all, in 5 steps. I use one of the gentler filters (more HF information passed) so that may account for why the removal of an overshoot at 80kHz or so has such an enormous effect, but it certainly does.

So to summarize: LL1676 wired in 2||2:1||1 with a source impedance of 1k (200R + 800R) and a snubber of 2nF+850R on the secondary = perfect. Highly recommended.
 
I have consistently found that ringing (peaking) out at about 60khz is extremely audible. Superficially it gives an airy extended top end - but fatigue rapidly sets in making the result unlistenable in the long run.

Shoog


Agreed. It's much smoother now. I had some CDs that were just recorded bright, but even they are much more tolerable now - I haven't lost the sparkle of the top end, just the annoyance factor.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.