|
|
|||||||
| 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
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago area
|
I have seen schematics for putting a CCS on the first stage and on the output stage of amplifiers.
My question- for a single-ended design is the greater bang for the buck obtained by putting a CCS on the input stage or the output stage? I'm thinking current sink, like an LM317 based CCS on a grounded cathode.
__________________
--Sherman |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: norman ok
|
On the input stage fer shur.
greater gain, lower distortion, greater PSRR. it's a no brainer. Cheers, EZ
__________________
"Give me the Luxuries of life & I will gladly live without the Necessities" (Frank Lloyd Wright) |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: big smoke
|
Plus anything you can do to make the input stage more linear pays double dividends at the output. I've been very pleased with CCS-loaded/LED-biased SE front ends.
Edit: Since the steaks are still on the grill, depends on circuit of course. LED biasing means no global feedback to the input cathode. Plate-to-plate or output in series with the OPT secondary still work. CCS also doesn't give as high a maximum possible driver plate swing, which may be important depending on output grid swing required (especially with cathode/secondary feedback) and the available B+. Nothing I've measured though has lower distrortion.
__________________
Ears aren't microphones. |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South Florida
|
I built an amp with a CCS plate load for the input tube (5842) AND the output tube (45). It sounds nice but is impractical and grossly ineficient. It needs 500 volts of B+ for 1.5 watts output.
I used that design as the driver for an 845, which is now my 845SE amp. Since I have experimented with both, I would say "bang for buck" wise the input stage is a far better deal. Plenty of bang for little bucks. Output (plate load) stage CCS's are complicated and expensive. Many people use CCS's in the cathode of the output tube. This only works right if the output tube remains firmly in class A operation. When you drive the amp hard enough to leave class A, the output tube tries to draw more current, which it can't do. This upsets the bias causing a distortion that may take several seconds to clear up.
__________________
Too much power is almost enough! Turn it up till it explodes - then back up just a little. |
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
diyAudio Member
|
Quote:
Try it! |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago area
|
Thanks everyone! Input stage it is then!
Intuitively I was thinking 'input' but I've been wrong so many times based on what seemed intuitive I thought I should ask. I hope to find some time to solder this week.
__________________
--Sherman |
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Bang for the Buck USB DAC - Fubar ?? | kvk | Digital Source | 1 | 20th February 2008 09:33 AM |
| most bang-for-the-buck sub-amp | skogs | Solid State | 12 | 8th September 2007 10:22 AM |
| The Current Maximum Bang For Your Buck Driver | BassAwdyO | Subwoofers | 45 | 9th September 2005 07:17 PM |
| What is the best bang for buck in MLS software? | Doug Peterson | Multi-Way | 1 | 15th November 2003 06:17 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.09736 seconds (75.33% PHP - 24.67% MySQL) with 10 queries |