CF and SRPP in one circuit . .

[rick57]

. . is there a sonic price?

What do our learned people think of this:



Meant to be flexible, one here said ****:

 

[Geek]

Sonic price as in....? 😕

 

[rick57]

Apologies for my shorthand.

I meant:

in providing switching between a classic common cathode-cathode follower cascade (CF) and a shunt-regulated push-pull (SRPP) circuit (it also has a passive path) in the one circuit, is there anything about this circuit that would reduce transparency/ transient response etc, over separate CF and SRPP circuits?

Any advice appreciated

Thanks
🙂

 

[mod_evil]

Sonic price as in....? 😕

Is a SRPP circuit with 6sn7GT a good circuit?

^.^

 

[Geek]

Hi,

Apologies for my shorthand.

I meant:

in providing switching between a classic common cathode-cathode follower cascade (CF) and a shunt-regulated push-pull (SRPP) circuit (it also has a passive path) in the one circuit, is there anything about this circuit that would reduce transparency/ transient response etc, over separate CF and SRPP circuits?

If you use a good switch or relays, nothing that you'd hear response wise. Though unless you use a multiple deck rotary (expensive) or relays (cheaper), stereo seperation can suffer.

Is a SRPP circuit with 6sn7GT a good circuit?

^.^

*budda, boom ching!*

A mate has good success with a 6SN7GT SRPP in tubifying his tuner output 🙂

 

[cogsncogs]

No, not really, save for some minute capacitive coupling in switch SW3 and sharing a common PS. And also combining the miller input 'C' of the two separate stages, esp the CF coupled stage, minute or not as it may be. Some may have a problem with all those nasty, dirty switches in the signal path. 🙂
Me thinks this was designed to compare CF & SRPP. The passive will have some HF attenuation because of the 100k level and volume pots, depending on their settings and your interconnects of course!

Wayne