I want to build a good quality hi-end tube amp able to drive 90db 4ohm speakers in an average size room. It seems that I will need at least 15-20 watts and was looking at some PSE 300B kits as the possible solution. I was wondering how much of the SE magic you lose if it is PSE. Since I am looking for a reasonably powerful amp I was also wondering about finding a 845 kit but they don't seem to be available or are not so popular in kit form. Being a newcomer to DIY valves I am still confused about the relative merits in terms of sound quality regarding different tubes. Do DIY kits compare favourably to hi-end products like Jadis,Cary etc?
Protos,
It is indeed a widespread notion that DIY is “Cheap and Nasty”. This has been the tradition. This is not always true.
There are a growing number of audiophiles, who resort to DIY because they have sampled many of the so called high end (“Reviewed, Respected and Glorified with glossy ads in leading underground magazines”) products and are not satisfied with them. I have been on that road and so I set out to design my own since the eighties.
Most commercially available power amps (including AudioNote, Audion, Audio Research, Carey, Jadis, Marantz…..) are made to be “Compatible” with generally available speakers. These are not dedicated products to suit your system. So if you wish to create what you can live with, then, you should “roll your own” amps and preamps.
If you are looking at 20W Single Ended, then you are going to have to deal with voltages approaching four figures. If you think that you can handle this, then by all means try building a kit. This is a starting point and it is the easiest way to learn, if you are technically inclined.
As to Single Ended or Parallel Single Ended, I quote from one of my earlier notes on this forum discussing the merits of SE vs PP.
SE vs PP
Single Ended amps are for those who are pure in heart and mind. For they shall listen to heavenly music.
A properly designed and built SE amp will be more musical than a Class A PP amp.
The difference to my ears is mainly in terms of tonal purity, real dynamics as opposed to the ‘slam’ of most PP amps and the ability to present a wealth of low level information that is simply not there with PP amps.
To enjoy the maximum benefits that Single Ended amps are capable of, we need speakers without crossovers. This means that the voice coil of the driver should be connected to the output transformer. In the old days, Philips made 600 ohm voice coils to suit their OTL amps. I wish a few of the present manufacturers would consider making full range (well, almost full range should be adequate for 90% of recorded music) drivers with 600 ohm voice coils. Some 5 years ago, I did take up the matter with Lowther and when I replied that I am willing to purchase 10 pairs, there was a brief silence at the other end of the telephone line and the discussion topic changed!
A less puristic approach will be to engineer the front end and output transformers of SE amps to roll off at frequencies appropriate for a selected driver. This means that we need separate amps for each driver and the drivers should be capable of operating over a wide frequency range to suit 6dB/octave roll off. This is going to be an expensive affair and could be outside the domain of most DIY enthusiasts. Besides, the wife would not like all those wires and ugly cases taking up more than their deserving share of the room. I hope that I have not offended some of our members.
Yes, paralleling output tubes and increasing the current drive to these tubes is an option to increase power output at the expense of loosing a puristic approach. Bottom line is that no two tubes would act alike. Full stop. We will need to match the tubes regularly and adjust the bias at each listening session. This is the story of PP amps.
Yes, there are ways of forcing the tubes (shared cathode resistors is a simplistic and effective approach) to be more consistent and follow each other more closely under signal conditions. The tubes then become rather restricted in their voltage and current swings because one tube may not exactly like what its neighbour is forcing it to do. The net result is somewhat diminished transient response (pulse rise time) than otherwise would have been possible with a single tube.
My opinion is that SE is for purists and single driver systems. PP is a more practical approach for systems with multiple drive unit systems. Yet again, some of my friends with ESL 57 say that parallel SE is more musically satisfying than their PP amps.
Mohan
It is indeed a widespread notion that DIY is “Cheap and Nasty”. This has been the tradition. This is not always true.
There are a growing number of audiophiles, who resort to DIY because they have sampled many of the so called high end (“Reviewed, Respected and Glorified with glossy ads in leading underground magazines”) products and are not satisfied with them. I have been on that road and so I set out to design my own since the eighties.
Most commercially available power amps (including AudioNote, Audion, Audio Research, Carey, Jadis, Marantz…..) are made to be “Compatible” with generally available speakers. These are not dedicated products to suit your system. So if you wish to create what you can live with, then, you should “roll your own” amps and preamps.
If you are looking at 20W Single Ended, then you are going to have to deal with voltages approaching four figures. If you think that you can handle this, then by all means try building a kit. This is a starting point and it is the easiest way to learn, if you are technically inclined.
As to Single Ended or Parallel Single Ended, I quote from one of my earlier notes on this forum discussing the merits of SE vs PP.
SE vs PP
Single Ended amps are for those who are pure in heart and mind. For they shall listen to heavenly music.
A properly designed and built SE amp will be more musical than a Class A PP amp.
The difference to my ears is mainly in terms of tonal purity, real dynamics as opposed to the ‘slam’ of most PP amps and the ability to present a wealth of low level information that is simply not there with PP amps.
To enjoy the maximum benefits that Single Ended amps are capable of, we need speakers without crossovers. This means that the voice coil of the driver should be connected to the output transformer. In the old days, Philips made 600 ohm voice coils to suit their OTL amps. I wish a few of the present manufacturers would consider making full range (well, almost full range should be adequate for 90% of recorded music) drivers with 600 ohm voice coils. Some 5 years ago, I did take up the matter with Lowther and when I replied that I am willing to purchase 10 pairs, there was a brief silence at the other end of the telephone line and the discussion topic changed!
A less puristic approach will be to engineer the front end and output transformers of SE amps to roll off at frequencies appropriate for a selected driver. This means that we need separate amps for each driver and the drivers should be capable of operating over a wide frequency range to suit 6dB/octave roll off. This is going to be an expensive affair and could be outside the domain of most DIY enthusiasts. Besides, the wife would not like all those wires and ugly cases taking up more than their deserving share of the room. I hope that I have not offended some of our members.
Yes, paralleling output tubes and increasing the current drive to these tubes is an option to increase power output at the expense of loosing a puristic approach. Bottom line is that no two tubes would act alike. Full stop. We will need to match the tubes regularly and adjust the bias at each listening session. This is the story of PP amps.
Yes, there are ways of forcing the tubes (shared cathode resistors is a simplistic and effective approach) to be more consistent and follow each other more closely under signal conditions. The tubes then become rather restricted in their voltage and current swings because one tube may not exactly like what its neighbour is forcing it to do. The net result is somewhat diminished transient response (pulse rise time) than otherwise would have been possible with a single tube.
My opinion is that SE is for purists and single driver systems. PP is a more practical approach for systems with multiple drive unit systems. Yet again, some of my friends with ESL 57 say that parallel SE is more musically satisfying than their PP amps.
Mohan
protos
You could try A 15W SE POWER AMPLIFIER WITH 6C33C-B from Borbelyaudio http://www.borbelyaudio.com/15wse.pdf
B+ is less than 400V (three-digit figure)
The amp can pushed even to 18 - 20 W, according to designer.
I haven’t built nor heard this amp but as Mr. Borbely is reputed to be very talented designer in audio electronics and I have listened some other 6C33C-B SE amps, I can still recommend building this amp.
They also have a kit available (does not include box though)
Argo
You could try A 15W SE POWER AMPLIFIER WITH 6C33C-B from Borbelyaudio http://www.borbelyaudio.com/15wse.pdf
B+ is less than 400V (three-digit figure)
The amp can pushed even to 18 - 20 W, according to designer.
I haven’t built nor heard this amp but as Mr. Borbely is reputed to be very talented designer in audio electronics and I have listened some other 6C33C-B SE amps, I can still recommend building this amp.
They also have a kit available (does not include box though)
Argo
Griff,
the rock music you mentioned demands a high average power output and this is a weak point of SE amps. They do not excel in pressing on and pressing on and pressing on, they excel in an extremely wide dynamic range where occasional power peaks are few and occasional (very soft) clipping does not hurt.
For rock music i would prefer a well-built PP tube amp to any SE amp.
Technical background : a class-A PP amp is a constant load for its PS.
Mohan,
may i slighly disagree with you?
Let's not compare a medium quality PP amp with a 1st class quality SE amp. Allen Wright's fully differntial PP amp was equalling this wonderful Border Patrol WE 300B amp, except in the bass, there it was easliy shouldering it.
Parallel SE however is better than its rep. I too would prefer a good parallel SE amp to an inferior PP amp. My friend Hartmut built such an amp, one 300B *replaced* by 3 EL84 in parallel. He prefered it. I cannot tell how the amp sounded with 300B, but i truly like it with 3x EL84. Same OPT.
What i prefer more is Allen Wright's PP amp, using noname EL34.
argo and protos,
if anyone tames the 6C33, then Mr Borbely. But it is a hard-to-tame tube, it is thermally so unstable! The tube runs very hot on 500mA, it gets hotter, its plate resistnace changes due to this, applied bias is not enough, os plate current increases further. I hope Mr Borbely's kit has a bias regulator. Compared with this sort of thermal instability, power bipolars are a kid's toy. As my friend Bernhard B. can tell from own hurtful experience
. The kit of challenges is not yet complete; the 6C33 is super high transconductant so that tiny variation in supply voltage yield considerable changes in quiescent current. And an OPT with 300 Ohm primary @ 500mA is needed which does not yet faint at 50 Hz.
THe 6C33 is often preferred to 211 and 845 because of its low plate voltage; people tend to avoid 1000V DC. That's wrong IMO, 90mA @ 1000V are much easier to tame than 500mA @ 200V.
I would not be as bold as tinkering with the 6C33, i would do my 1st steps on a good old 211 or 845. THe 845 is for the a bit more bold people, it wants to see about 300V p2p at its grid. But yes, it is possible to achieve this without using a 2A3 and an interstage trannie. My buddy Peter Hartmann built such a thing, sonics just gorgeous, using 6SL7, 6SN7 and 845. He might volunteer the schematic, but i have to ask him for that.
The 211 is good for 20 watts and the 845 for 25-30 watts in SE mode.
the rock music you mentioned demands a high average power output and this is a weak point of SE amps. They do not excel in pressing on and pressing on and pressing on, they excel in an extremely wide dynamic range where occasional power peaks are few and occasional (very soft) clipping does not hurt.
For rock music i would prefer a well-built PP tube amp to any SE amp.
Technical background : a class-A PP amp is a constant load for its PS.
Mohan,
may i slighly disagree with you?
Let's not compare a medium quality PP amp with a 1st class quality SE amp. Allen Wright's fully differntial PP amp was equalling this wonderful Border Patrol WE 300B amp, except in the bass, there it was easliy shouldering it.
Parallel SE however is better than its rep. I too would prefer a good parallel SE amp to an inferior PP amp. My friend Hartmut built such an amp, one 300B *replaced* by 3 EL84 in parallel. He prefered it. I cannot tell how the amp sounded with 300B, but i truly like it with 3x EL84. Same OPT.
What i prefer more is Allen Wright's PP amp, using noname EL34.
argo and protos,
if anyone tames the 6C33, then Mr Borbely. But it is a hard-to-tame tube, it is thermally so unstable! The tube runs very hot on 500mA, it gets hotter, its plate resistnace changes due to this, applied bias is not enough, os plate current increases further. I hope Mr Borbely's kit has a bias regulator. Compared with this sort of thermal instability, power bipolars are a kid's toy. As my friend Bernhard B. can tell from own hurtful experience
. The kit of challenges is not yet complete; the 6C33 is super high transconductant so that tiny variation in supply voltage yield considerable changes in quiescent current. And an OPT with 300 Ohm primary @ 500mA is needed which does not yet faint at 50 Hz.THe 6C33 is often preferred to 211 and 845 because of its low plate voltage; people tend to avoid 1000V DC. That's wrong IMO, 90mA @ 1000V are much easier to tame than 500mA @ 200V.
I would not be as bold as tinkering with the 6C33, i would do my 1st steps on a good old 211 or 845. THe 845 is for the a bit more bold people, it wants to see about 300V p2p at its grid. But yes, it is possible to achieve this without using a 2A3 and an interstage trannie. My buddy Peter Hartmann built such a thing, sonics just gorgeous, using 6SL7, 6SN7 and 845. He might volunteer the schematic, but i have to ask him for that.
The 211 is good for 20 watts and the 845 for 25-30 watts in SE mode.
Griff,
Conceptually you are quite correct. However, the difficulty arises in finding or building a good high power amp. Over the years, I have auditioned many so called State of the Art high power amps (both solid state and tube kinds) and found none to my liking. The only amp that came close was the Stax DA300 Class A-PP.
Mohan
Conceptually you are quite correct. However, the difficulty arises in finding or building a good high power amp. Over the years, I have auditioned many so called State of the Art high power amps (both solid state and tube kinds) and found none to my liking. The only amp that came close was the Stax DA300 Class A-PP.
Mohan
Stadium V
Hey, music lover
When you getting involved in single ended area (tubes or solid state) with preffered single driver (efficient one), becareful cause now you're in Stadium V like Cancer disease (if you're still live you're became maniac, ooopps) so we are gonna meet in Heaven.
End of Sermon
Best Regards,
Goodfella,
Hey, music lover
When you getting involved in single ended area (tubes or solid state) with preffered single driver (efficient one), becareful cause now you're in Stadium V like Cancer disease (if you're still live you're became maniac, ooopps) so we are gonna meet in Heaven.
End of Sermon
Best Regards,
Goodfella,
For the rockers that have less than 92db efficiency speakers a good place to look would be 6550/KT-88 Ultralinear PP. A good simple example of this is the Dynaco Mark III. I like rock from my teens & 20s all those years ago and truthfully PP does a good job. PP does a good job with all types of music, but when I want to seriously listen nothing beats SE. And all SE is not created equal. I listened to a pair of C. Johnson SE 845s. Good amps with lots of power for SE but 845s do not compare to 300Bs. Watts are relative. Sound quality is not.
PSE
Since this thread seems to have exhausted itself, I feel no guilt in hijacking it, since the title fits:
I have no agenda. Just an interest in debate on this issue.
There is a feeling among DIY'ers that PSE is the poor relation, as it reportedly suffers from some lack of clearness, or blurring due to differences in valve characteristics.
Whether this is an "urban myth" or a "single truth", I do not know.
I want to take the thought path to it's logical conclusions:
If the parallel valves had a single load (as normal), it's true that they might share the current with varying fairness.
If 2 primaries were wound, and one supplied each anode, there would be more chance of independent operation. But, if the coupling was tight, and R was low; ie a good transformer, then there would be no performance difference between this and a single winding.
Now the leap:
Disconnect the each end of the second primary winding and reconnect it reversed.
Of course there will be no sound because each primary will cancel the other.
So, invert the phase of the signal fed to one valve.
Apart from the DC cancellation, the circuit should act the same...... or will it?
We now have a Push Pull circuit running in class A1.
Does this mean that class A1 PP circuits suffer from the blurring, which is claimed as the downfall of PSE?
Or is blurring a myth?
Or are there factors I haven't considered?
So many questions.....
Since this thread seems to have exhausted itself, I feel no guilt in hijacking it, since the title fits:
I have no agenda. Just an interest in debate on this issue.
There is a feeling among DIY'ers that PSE is the poor relation, as it reportedly suffers from some lack of clearness, or blurring due to differences in valve characteristics.
Whether this is an "urban myth" or a "single truth", I do not know.
I want to take the thought path to it's logical conclusions:
If the parallel valves had a single load (as normal), it's true that they might share the current with varying fairness.
If 2 primaries were wound, and one supplied each anode, there would be more chance of independent operation. But, if the coupling was tight, and R was low; ie a good transformer, then there would be no performance difference between this and a single winding.
Now the leap:
Disconnect the each end of the second primary winding and reconnect it reversed.
Of course there will be no sound because each primary will cancel the other.
So, invert the phase of the signal fed to one valve.
Apart from the DC cancellation, the circuit should act the same...... or will it?
We now have a Push Pull circuit running in class A1.
Does this mean that class A1 PP circuits suffer from the blurring, which is claimed as the downfall of PSE?
Or is blurring a myth?
Or are there factors I haven't considered?
So many questions.....
SE vs PSE
Radiotron states that the distortion for two tubes is the same as for one, single-ended.... so it would follow that there can be no "blurring" or any other sound difference.
Also, keep in mind that the optimal load resistance is half that of a single tube. If you don't make that adjustment, it can have an effect on the output power and distortion.
Radiotron states that the distortion for two tubes is the same as for one, single-ended.... so it would follow that there can be no "blurring" or any other sound difference.
Also, keep in mind that the optimal load resistance is half that of a single tube. If you don't make that adjustment, it can have an effect on the output power and distortion.
Re: PSE
I think this is the same question i asked in this thread.
Here i was thinking of using 2 SE OPTs instead of dual primaries.
I reinsert the picture:
I got busy and wasn't able to pursue the thread, and thot maybe i should just go breadboard it.
dave
dhaen said:
I think this is the same question i asked in this thread.
Here i was thinking of using 2 SE OPTs instead of dual primaries.
I reinsert the picture:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I got busy and wasn't able to pursue the thread, and thot maybe i should just go breadboard it.
dave
Joel, I just knew you would say that. You're complely down to earth. And yes, I was ignoring the imedance issues for the sake of the argument.
However, i don't think everyone thinks the same; where are the "blurring" protagonists? ... Bernhard?
Dave, thanks, but I think this argument works best with 1 transformer, otherwise side arguments might get in the way.
Said above:
>>Does this mean that class A1 PP circuits suffer from the blurring, which is claimed as the downfall of PSE?
Or is blurring a myth?
Or are there factors I haven't considered?
Here is one recent take.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/set/messages/22520.html
Craig Ryder
>>Does this mean that class A1 PP circuits suffer from the blurring, which is claimed as the downfall of PSE?
Or is blurring a myth?
Or are there factors I haven't considered?
Here is one recent take.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/set/messages/22520.html
Craig Ryder
PP TUBES
Hi,
Unless you match these tubes to perfection,you're going to loose out on some hyper info on micro detail.
When using parelelled tubes you MUST match them carefully.
SE is ok for mid and highs but can't take control of a woofie.
Wishfull thinking.
Contrary to popular belief these are not in the same ballpark.
A 211 is not an 845 and vice virsa.
Drive requirements are not the same at all.
It may be high time I call you all tube ignorandi?
I invite anybody thinking to know a thing or two about tubes here.I'll have you for breakfast.
In the mean time I stick to my cereals.
And nobody has any experience with the 6C33 anyway,so be ware of your claims.
ROTMFLAO,
Hi,
Unless you match these tubes to perfection,you're going to loose out on some hyper info on micro detail.
When using parelelled tubes you MUST match them carefully.
SE is ok for mid and highs but can't take control of a woofie.
Wishfull thinking.
Contrary to popular belief these are not in the same ballpark.
A 211 is not an 845 and vice virsa.
Drive requirements are not the same at all.
It may be high time I call you all tube ignorandi?
I invite anybody thinking to know a thing or two about tubes here.I'll have you for breakfast.
In the mean time I stick to my cereals.
And nobody has any experience with the 6C33 anyway,so be ware of your claims.
ROTMFLAO,
Re: Re: Re: PSE
Hi,
> posted by planet10
Just a thought. You may wish to NOT connect the transformers in parallel, but to use a secondary with 1/4 the nominal impedance and series these. Paralleling Amplifier outputs invariably leads to one device current hogging and thus the other at least partially shutting off. That is unless you can match real devices to the calculation tolerance of P-Spice AND in the case of valves make sure they stay matched over time.
BWTFDIK....
Sayonara
Hi,
> posted by planet10
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Just a thought. You may wish to NOT connect the transformers in parallel, but to use a secondary with 1/4 the nominal impedance and series these. Paralleling Amplifier outputs invariably leads to one device current hogging and thus the other at least partially shutting off. That is unless you can match real devices to the calculation tolerance of P-Spice AND in the case of valves make sure they stay matched over time.
BWTFDIK....
Sayonara
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.