I discarded all my tube stock except E88CC, ECC88, 6N23P, PCC88. These are the best tubes for audio, in my view. I use them only in SRPP configuration.
I was making a bad joke lcsaszar.... all my research pointed at the d3a d3o and ecc88 (6DJ8) as best tubes for small signals.
I use also 12au7 as output, excellent too in the NOS,
I made many tests with other tubes, nothing touches the tubes above haha
I use also 12au7 as output, excellent too in the NOS,
I made many tests with other tubes, nothing touches the tubes above haha
ECC88 are the quietest because made anti microphonic. But it has also more dispersion between the two triodes. Confusion comes than the E88CC has better tolerance and made to have a longer lifespan for pro telecom, computer, etc, for the later enthusiasts.
Cca are sorted out E88CC close parent from Mullard: they are not exactly E88CC, cunsumption was setuped at 300 mA for Deutsch Post. Btw ECC88 were also put in all the oscilloscopes at the same period. the Cca batch was sorted out and tested in plant so ! As the E188CC/7308 will be (tested, the mismatch between the two triodes 5% max) . tubes quoted already a fortune, made for professionels, used by TV and radios and top equipments.
6DJ8 = ECC88. As far I know they poped up at the same time as the ECC88 and made on tooling Philips equipment sent since the purchase of Amperex in 1955. Some books says the frame that prelude to E88CC (6922) and ECC88 was a discover of Amperex, but the fact is many of the engineers (R&D) were based in GB at Mullard (owned Philips since 1923?) and the quality of their filament was a part of it.
Many of the 6DJ8 were made at Eerlin Holland as the facilities were > to NYC and sent at Amperex. As for the 7308/E188CC : all the special part and sorted out ones were made in Europe and sent at Amperex for the 7308 made there. But many were made in Holland at Eerlin and sent Amperex for the american market, especially because the american law for militay equipments purchase (I read Philips purchased Amperex for that).
I believe advert for pre launch and effective production are two different things as the cars ! The fact is the Cca are not exactly E88CC and there are many confusion everywhere and who care Siemens asked special batches ! There is so much confusion that purchasers of nowadays by snobism pay more for a Cca than a way better E188CC/7308, E288CC, etc. That's what you can read from the people writting books about tubes but who knows.
Discutting about which at few months has something ridiculous and an obssession imho, it is off topic for the subject of sound purpose, seems now to me both the ECC88 and E88CC were made at the same time for different markets and sligthy different goals and anyway from a Mullard base! All made by Philips tooling the owners, fatigued tooling sent after behind the irron curtain btw (eventually some ECC88 sounded there like microphonic agging E88CC). That's what I readed. Who knows, maybe the Vatican archives ? This conversation about which old fart of us is rigth is funny as we are all becomming deaf. Very entertaining finally,very fake and wokism war ! 🙂
I wonder if my parents had a Philips TV of 1957 with an ECC88 cause the Grunding E88CC was more expensive ? Btw I remember the TV that masted the most was a Telefunken. I do not remember what tubes where used to listen to the resistance during occupation in our ceillings, ahaha !
As the D3A, they are not made all equals... and less easy to tame out.
Cca are sorted out E88CC close parent from Mullard: they are not exactly E88CC, cunsumption was setuped at 300 mA for Deutsch Post. Btw ECC88 were also put in all the oscilloscopes at the same period. the Cca batch was sorted out and tested in plant so ! As the E188CC/7308 will be (tested, the mismatch between the two triodes 5% max) . tubes quoted already a fortune, made for professionels, used by TV and radios and top equipments.
6DJ8 = ECC88. As far I know they poped up at the same time as the ECC88 and made on tooling Philips equipment sent since the purchase of Amperex in 1955. Some books says the frame that prelude to E88CC (6922) and ECC88 was a discover of Amperex, but the fact is many of the engineers (R&D) were based in GB at Mullard (owned Philips since 1923?) and the quality of their filament was a part of it.
Many of the 6DJ8 were made at Eerlin Holland as the facilities were > to NYC and sent at Amperex. As for the 7308/E188CC : all the special part and sorted out ones were made in Europe and sent at Amperex for the 7308 made there. But many were made in Holland at Eerlin and sent Amperex for the american market, especially because the american law for militay equipments purchase (I read Philips purchased Amperex for that).
I believe advert for pre launch and effective production are two different things as the cars ! The fact is the Cca are not exactly E88CC and there are many confusion everywhere and who care Siemens asked special batches ! There is so much confusion that purchasers of nowadays by snobism pay more for a Cca than a way better E188CC/7308, E288CC, etc. That's what you can read from the people writting books about tubes but who knows.
Discutting about which at few months has something ridiculous and an obssession imho, it is off topic for the subject of sound purpose, seems now to me both the ECC88 and E88CC were made at the same time for different markets and sligthy different goals and anyway from a Mullard base! All made by Philips tooling the owners, fatigued tooling sent after behind the irron curtain btw (eventually some ECC88 sounded there like microphonic agging E88CC). That's what I readed. Who knows, maybe the Vatican archives ? This conversation about which old fart of us is rigth is funny as we are all becomming deaf. Very entertaining finally,very fake and wokism war ! 🙂
I wonder if my parents had a Philips TV of 1957 with an ECC88 cause the Grunding E88CC was more expensive ? Btw I remember the TV that masted the most was a Telefunken. I do not remember what tubes where used to listen to the resistance during occupation in our ceillings, ahaha !
As the D3A, they are not made all equals... and less easy to tame out.
Last edited:
@audioxcel
But when you ask to Thorsten Loesch today (the guy that developped the AMR CD77) he would use some other HF tubes today or even more discrete bjt (see the long TDA1541A thread from 1 year ago circa)
But when you ask to Thorsten Loesch today (the guy that developped the AMR CD77) he would use some other HF tubes today or even more discrete bjt (see the long TDA1541A thread from 1 year ago circa)
Achtung byciclette : the heater of the pcc88 is 7V, rest "equal", if equal makes sense when different !
My question....... Is this, what you´ll call "Thread Jacking"??
OP´s intension of inverse riaa on the signal from TDA1541 to a phono input now seems like a long, forgotten dream,
and this discussion of variants of ECC88 is the most "OFF TOPIC" I´ve seen in any thread on diyA. 😴
OP´s intension of inverse riaa on the signal from TDA1541 to a phono input now seems like a long, forgotten dream,
and this discussion of variants of ECC88 is the most "OFF TOPIC" I´ve seen in any thread on diyA. 😴
For the original topic, see post #72
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ac-to-feed-a-phono-preamp.426544/post-7989498
and #111
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ac-to-feed-a-phono-preamp.426544/post-7993129
and #132 ... #137
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ac-to-feed-a-phono-preamp.426544/post-7994380
I think the whole off-topic discussion about the E88CC family started because the thread starter also wants to compare the result to converting the DAC output current into a line-level voltage using a resistor and valve stage, see for example post #144 ... #146 and beyond
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ac-to-feed-a-phono-preamp.426544/post-7998173
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ac-to-feed-a-phono-preamp.426544/post-7989498
and #111
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ac-to-feed-a-phono-preamp.426544/post-7993129
and #132 ... #137
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ac-to-feed-a-phono-preamp.426544/post-7994380
I think the whole off-topic discussion about the E88CC family started because the thread starter also wants to compare the result to converting the DAC output current into a line-level voltage using a resistor and valve stage, see for example post #144 ... #146 and beyond
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ac-to-feed-a-phono-preamp.426544/post-7998173
The fact is some good phono stages are made from the op828 and it was said it is working good for I/V with the TDA1541A which is the targett behind op question.
Not too much if you think twice about it. If phono stage and I/V stage for DAC seems to have close similarities because their goal is to convert into voltage very weak current, the fact it comes from a DAC changes many things. The distance between the dac chip current output and the phono stage that are often outside in box is a problem. Also the high frequencies involved are not the same, whatever it is 16 bits only, the layout stays an important part behind the typology chosen. It is even more true for tubes and TDA1541A with its 0 to -4mA, with digital silence at -2mA , that makes the grid as tube input a very elegant system. And here the type of tube maters : microphony, etc. That's what we also discuss. But I agree which from the chicken and the egg talking is off topic.
Btw the E88CC is staying also a valid choice cause as we age as this tube, trebles seeemsto be more present in the mix: One has to try, but two non used E88CC will not tell you much vs an Ecc88.
There is several problems in the project to hack the digital output of a CD player to make something external. Not talking about the risk to waste a rare chip if the CD player has S1 or S2 TDA chips. I have already breaked one TDA15414A (not a rare one as I have some in stock) in a tubee experiment because the layout of a pcb that was not made for that, so I knwo that... not off topic. But the theorical part of the RIAA things is very interresting.
Thanks for trying to keep the thread more focused. I have pretty much received the guidance on RIAA that II needed for MarcelvdG. I have ordered the parts that he recommended and expect them to arrive in the next few days. I look forward to building the circuit and hoping for a good result. I will probably have more questions regarding the best techniques for using perf board for the build, wire to use, etc.
I really haven't received answers to my first questions about building an ECC88 SRPP circuit as phase 4 of my CD880 experiments. I have read Thorsten's paper and did not find the answers to my questions. In fact, I am confused about some of his statements regarding adjustments to component values. The calculated values he gives do not seem to match what he said about adjustments necessary for using the TDA151 DAC. (See the attached file.
Last edited:
Thank you again, MarcelvdG. I think as you say, you have answered all of the questions I have asked about building an RIAA circuit so far. And, I have moved on to questions about building an ECC88 SRPP circuit (more specifically a 6DJ8 because I think I could directly sub a 6922 or 6N23P in that) that I can use with my CD880 for comparison with the RIAA circuit. I hope you will help me with that as well because I trust your knowledge and engineering skills.
Last edited:
More's the pity. A more in-depth examination of the opening post and the rationale for going down this unconventional route might have been useful.
270 ohm/2 is indeed not equal to 100 ohm. What's worse, both are substantially greater than the 33 ohm recommended by Icsaszar in post #111, https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ac-to-feed-a-phono-preamp.426544/post-7993129 , based on TDA1541A distortion measurements.
The most conservative value is Icsaszar's 33 ohm. If you were to use that, you would get a signal voltage of about 66 mV peak at the TDA1541A output. Without decoupling of the lower cathode, the SRPP stage has a gain of about -mu/2, so -16.5 for an ECC88. The output signal is then 1.089 V peak or 0.77 V RMS when playing a full-scale sine wave. That's about 8.3 dB softer than the 2 V RMS that most CD players produce. Would that be a problem for you?
I think the noise would still be reasonable with 33 ohm. Taking 10 nV/√Hz as a rough estimate for the SRPP stage's equivalent input noise voltage, the noise floor of the SRPP stage would be about -92.3 dB A-weighted with respect to the full-scale voltage across the 33 ohm. The SRPP stage noise would then be a few decibels louder than the dithered quantization noise of a 16 bit digital system such as CD, but probably still much less than that of the circuit of post #72 followed by a phono preamplifier.
I am not sure how the lower output voltage will affect the overall sound of my system in and of itself. I do know that when I play cds, I usually set the volume control of my preamp at about 10 o'clock I also have a Nakamichi CR-4A cassette deck which has a 0dB spec output of 0.5v. and could match the volume of my CD880 with the volume control set at 12 o'clock. I never measured the output of my CR-4A but some people reported measurements in the range of about 0.7v. I can hear more preamp tube "hiss" with the volume control set at 12 o'clock when here is no music but it does not intrude when music is paying.
When I wanted to demonstrate a comparison of sound quality for my friends between my Nakamichi CR-4A, I would sync a tape and a CD of the same music and check the volume match by listening back and forth. When I gad it all set, I would bring my friends into the room. My friends usually could not tell which source they were listening to when I switched back and forth without them watching me do the switching.
Do you think I might have a better result if I use John Broksie's Aikido circuit instead of the SRPP circuit favored by Lukasz Fikus?.
When I wanted to demonstrate a comparison of sound quality for my friends between my Nakamichi CR-4A, I would sync a tape and a CD of the same music and check the volume match by listening back and forth. When I gad it all set, I would bring my friends into the room. My friends usually could not tell which source they were listening to when I switched back and forth without them watching me do the switching.
Do you think I might have a better result if I use John Broksie's Aikido circuit instead of the SRPP circuit favored by Lukasz Fikus?.
No, this circuit https://www.tubecad.com/2004/blog0011.htm should behave quite similarly to an SRPP stage except for the better suppression of power supply ripple.
Also when the input is shorted to make sure it is not the cassette deck noise floor you hear?
Also when the input is shorted to make sure it is not the cassette deck noise floor you hear?
No it is 300 mA. Comes down to approximately 7V but it is in fact current that is specified and not the voltage.
The reason the thread derails is probably the nonsense subject. No sane person puts time in that. Now connecting a turn table with MC cartridge to a TDA1541A DACs SPDIF input that is a challenge!
Last edited:
Don't do the lampizator, go opamps, sounds best, better than discrete...
I just listened tonight to music through 4 ne5543, its very nice sounding, not the most realistic,
But it is the sound you would dream for, most relax, glare and noise and digital and transistor free you can imagine, just pure music of your dreams.. all 4 driven by two lm3xx regulators , very basic , cheap 0.5cents 100uf 25v output caps lol
I just listened tonight to music through 4 ne5543, its very nice sounding, not the most realistic,
But it is the sound you would dream for, most relax, glare and noise and digital and transistor free you can imagine, just pure music of your dreams.. all 4 driven by two lm3xx regulators , very basic , cheap 0.5cents 100uf 25v output caps lol
@jean-paul : So like the Cca... 300 mA like the E88CC/6922: bingo ! (unlike the the ECC88).
You can't, the spidf is an output not an intput, the table will be noy happy ! you meant spidf to a phono preamp! better !😎
Alad Insane.
@audioxcel : just use the simple circuitry of the article with one 88 tube family ,just use the correct B+ and heater voltage according the 88 type tube you choose. to have a proof of conceptif you like the sound or not vs what you tried (sparkos, ...). You improve it later (SRPP, hybrid Mu follower, etc)
As you are on it try the op1655/56 and opa 828 by taking the correct one between single and dual according your circuitry. Not ideal cause socket sucks, but will give you an idea as good op amps for that task VS the Sparkos, etc. Anyway I assume in th ePhilips you have an active filter op amp based perhaps, so a lot of factor that make the benchmark not easy...
You can't, the spidf is an output not an intput, the table will be noy happy ! you meant spidf to a phono preamp! better !😎
Alad Insane.
@audioxcel : just use the simple circuitry of the article with one 88 tube family ,just use the correct B+ and heater voltage according the 88 type tube you choose. to have a proof of conceptif you like the sound or not vs what you tried (sparkos, ...). You improve it later (SRPP, hybrid Mu follower, etc)
As you are on it try the op1655/56 and opa 828 by taking the correct one between single and dual according your circuitry. Not ideal cause socket sucks, but will give you an idea as good op amps for that task VS the Sparkos, etc. Anyway I assume in th ePhilips you have an active filter op amp based perhaps, so a lot of factor that make the benchmark not easy...