|
|
|||||||
| 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 |
| diyAudio Sponsor | ||
|
|
||
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Here's my problem
I have an amp using a long tail phase splitter. I am terribly unhaapy with the performance. I want to use a ccs. The circuit is half a 6sn7, directly coupled to an ecc99 ltp with a 10k tail I am not very good with ss design, so i decided to copy the a css How do i manage to get the gorrect voltage at the kathodes to keep the direct coupling? Or should i decouple with a cap? I am not unwilling to do some calcs, i just need a few pointers |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Near London. UK
|
You don't need to worry about the cathode voltage, the CCS will sort that out automatically. Once you add the CCS, you will need to balance the anode load resistors of the phase splitter.
__________________
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... |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
i know i have to balance. Should i use *about* the same level?
Any suggestions for css? i've been looking at the css in the "coldwar" amp on www.ultranalog.com gary p makes cool ones too, but they are far more complicated (and i have a sample acount at AD |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Near London. UK
|
Balance the anode loads. Match them if you like.
You will have to make a CCS from scratch because it must withstand 100V or so. Unless AD have changed their policy, they don't make valve support circuitry...
__________________
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... |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
err...i know they have to be matched, i meant, what value? about the same as in the circuit? (both at 30k or so)
As i said, i have NO ccs design abilities...any pointers? Thanks |
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
|
IXYS makes a CCS that is rated at 450V. IXYS 10M45. Sold at Digikey etc.
Texas Instruments makes a linear regulator that can be used as a CCS and will tolerate up to 125V between in and out if you need alot of current. TL783. Theres some fairly simple CCS designs of good performance using just a couple cascoded mosfets. This picture from Gary Pimm's site illustrates the idea:
__________________
Be sure your foil hat has a good low impedance ground. |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South Florida
|
The simplest CCS by far is the IXYS 10M45 chip. It works good too. Get the amp working with it, then you can upgrade if you want.
You need two resistors and the chip. The resistor from the "K" pin to ground sets the current, and you need a 1K resistor in series with the "G" lead to supress oscillations. The "stopper" resistor is not shown on the data sheet, but bad things happen if you don't use it.
__________________
Too much power is almost enough! Turn it up till it explodes - then back up just a little. |
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
i contacted an ixys reseller here in the netherlands, see what comes out...
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | ||
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zagreb
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
is it! damn!
That are the things i can't calculate. Increasing the coupling caps to 1uF won't take that away would it? This is a design by a highly respected designer here in holland (in the real design he used kt88's) I thought he'd done his calcs right...Ii'll drop him a mail... any suggestions to lower the filter? 100k leak/2uF coupling? It does have solid bass, but might be increased if the transfer function is optimized below 64hZ..... I want to experiment with feedback in the future, for now it sound very acceptable to me. The opt's don't require nfb to be flattened out. I want to decide on the final seakers and then go the fb way (or not) There are recent rumours that UL could be achieved (there's a thrread here that i started or contributed to, don't remember) Really appreciate the help here, finally my bodged together circuit is analyzed in an uplifing way! Bas |
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Direct Coupling question | angsuman | Tubes / Valves | 2 | 27th July 2008 12:33 AM |
| Direct-Coupling Question | sorenj07 | Tubes / Valves | 10 | 25th April 2008 06:43 AM |
| direct coupling | 2a3maniac | Tubes / Valves | 9 | 13th February 2004 09:36 PM |
| direct coupling | 2a3maniac | Tubes / Valves | 11 | 2nd February 2004 07:19 PM |
| Direct coupling question... | SHiFTY | Tubes / Valves | 8 | 3rd October 2003 09:49 PM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.10859 seconds (78.76% PHP - 21.24% MySQL) with 11 queries |