Im looking for an easy to build, great sounding 6v6 amp since I already have the tubes in hand.
I am thinking of building thisDIY Push-Pull (PP) 6V6 / 6V6GT Tube Amplifier Schematic 6v6 amp but I want to know if anyone has tried it and what was the result.
Anyone?
Thx
I am thinking of building thisDIY Push-Pull (PP) 6V6 / 6V6GT Tube Amplifier Schematic 6v6 amp but I want to know if anyone has tried it and what was the result.
Anyone?
Thx
There is an error in the schematic; the feedback resistor should be 1K, it provides both feedback and cathode bias to both triodes in the input stage.
This is the correct schematic: Push-Pull (PP) EL84 (6BQ5) or 6V6 (6AQ5) Tube Amp Schematic with Dynaco A-410 Transformers Note differences between 6V6 and 6BQ5 versions. I'd be inclined to run the output stage a lot hotter than in the project that references this original schematic.
This is the correct schematic: Push-Pull (PP) EL84 (6BQ5) or 6V6 (6AQ5) Tube Amp Schematic with Dynaco A-410 Transformers Note differences between 6V6 and 6BQ5 versions. I'd be inclined to run the output stage a lot hotter than in the project that references this original schematic.
Last edited:
Overall a nice circuit - uses self-balancing paraphase inverter. Cathode resistor for 6SL7 is 10K (feedback resistor, via OPT secondary). Seems a MITE high... a poor operating point. I'd add a ~1.2K cathode resistor to ground, and adjust feedback resistor for desired gain.
That's because it was not properly compensated for the transformers in use.. DIY power indeed.
Last edited:
so I will be fine with this DIY Push-Pull (PP) 6V6 / 6V6GT Tube Amplifier Schematic version right??? It seems to have all the modifications you guys mentioned.
Well, could be. Maybe a bad layout or bad power supply design. Anyway 10K to bias the 6SL7 is ridiculous.
I didn't have oscillation using 1K feedback resistor with Hammond OT's.
BTW, the 6V6's sounded better in triode mode.
Here's the "original" Dynaco schematic, in case the OP is looking for it:
http://www.triodeel.com/dyna6bq5.gif
Doesn't the Magnavox 8802 have a similar self-balancing paraphase inverter?
edit: Oops, sorry Kevin. I missed you already posted the Dynaco schematic from another source.
http://www.triodeel.com/dyna6bq5.gif
Doesn't the Magnavox 8802 have a similar self-balancing paraphase inverter?
edit: Oops, sorry Kevin. I missed you already posted the Dynaco schematic from another source.
Last edited:
I don't know what kind of results you'll get, but I don't like that design. Doesn't go with my design philosophy, and I see problems here.
*) Inferior phase splitter. It's a floating paraphase, and the main problem with these types of splitters is unbalanced harmonic distortion between phases. An LTP splitter avoids that problem, and is scarcely more complex than the paraphase (only requiring the added complication of an active tail load). The LTP also provides a ready NFB summing point, as it also works as a differential amp.
*) Inadequate drive: the 12AX7 or 6SL7 just isn't up to sourcing current into loads with significant capacitance, and audio finals will have larger input and reverse transfer capacitances than small signal types. I would like to see cathode or source follower grid drivers between the phase splitter/gain stage and the finals. If the current sourcing isn't there, you will get slew limiting at the high frequencies. That sounds nasty, and may cause stability problems when the gNFB is added. A cathode or source follower presents these high impedance voltage amp VTs with friendlier loads (Hi-Z, Lo-C).
*) Extremely poor power supply. A 100R resistor and a 47uF capacitor has a cutoff of: 33.9Hz. For a first order, that gives: 10.9db of attenuation of the 120Hz ripple. That's positively hideous! It might have been good enough for a cheap design back in the day. A proper second order, LCR ripple filter would be much better (but ripple chokes are more expensive than resistors). If you still want to go cheap, then an active decoupler made from MOSFETs would be a vast improvement over that obsolete design from the days before high voltage MOSFETs. I'd expect this thingy will Hummmmmmmmmmm a good deal.
This design looks more "quick 'n' dirty" than anything else. It might make for a low powered PA, an AM plate modulator, or a guitar amp, but that's about it.
I give this design a rating of:
*) Inferior phase splitter. It's a floating paraphase, and the main problem with these types of splitters is unbalanced harmonic distortion between phases. An LTP splitter avoids that problem, and is scarcely more complex than the paraphase (only requiring the added complication of an active tail load). The LTP also provides a ready NFB summing point, as it also works as a differential amp.
*) Inadequate drive: the 12AX7 or 6SL7 just isn't up to sourcing current into loads with significant capacitance, and audio finals will have larger input and reverse transfer capacitances than small signal types. I would like to see cathode or source follower grid drivers between the phase splitter/gain stage and the finals. If the current sourcing isn't there, you will get slew limiting at the high frequencies. That sounds nasty, and may cause stability problems when the gNFB is added. A cathode or source follower presents these high impedance voltage amp VTs with friendlier loads (Hi-Z, Lo-C).
*) Extremely poor power supply. A 100R resistor and a 47uF capacitor has a cutoff of: 33.9Hz. For a first order, that gives: 10.9db of attenuation of the 120Hz ripple. That's positively hideous! It might have been good enough for a cheap design back in the day. A proper second order, LCR ripple filter would be much better (but ripple chokes are more expensive than resistors). If you still want to go cheap, then an active decoupler made from MOSFETs would be a vast improvement over that obsolete design from the days before high voltage MOSFETs. I'd expect this thingy will Hummmmmmmmmmm a good deal.
This design looks more "quick 'n' dirty" than anything else. It might make for a low powered PA, an AM plate modulator, or a guitar amp, but that's about it.
I give this design a rating of:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
out of five
Last edited:
I would use a 470 Ohm resistor to bias the 6SL7 and then apply best feedback ratio for your taste, OT's, speakers, etc. If that's too complicated for you use 1K. Not the 10K in the schematic you posted. Is that clear now?
EDIT: Miles your theory is correct however the amp sounds great. I did try an LTP first. Talking about the phase splitter, not about the PS.
The Leben CS300 uses same splitter, maybe you have the chance to hear that amp one day.
Last edited:
Not surprised to hear the 6V6s sounded better in triode mode.. As a general comment you clearly know exactly what you are doing and why - such may not be the case with a relative newbie, and as described that particular project amp is broken. 😀
😀 Right.
Lawbadman build it like it is, just beef up the power supply caps, 100uF instead of 47uF, and remember 1K not 10K for that resistor 😀
That's it.
Lawbadman build it like it is, just beef up the power supply caps, 100uF instead of 47uF, and remember 1K not 10K for that resistor 😀
That's it.
I'm wondering how serious could be the fact (pointed by Crowhurst, that hates this type of paraphase) that , from the point of view of the NFB signal, it passes two stages on the (-) phase, and three stages on the (+) phase (V1a + op tube vs V1a+V1b+op lower tube)
I'm wrong?
I'm wrong?
Last edited:
The NFB doesn't go through three stages, since there's that 100uF bypass capacitor to help prevent this. Still, the whole arrangement smells of "quick 'n' dirty", and I would expect that, at low frequencies where the 100uF bypass begins to lose effectiveness, you would have low frequency stability issues (and high frequency issues where the internal inductive reactance becomes significant).
Where did you read it? I have serious doubts about that.
World's full of skeptics; I say build it, listen and then comment. In that order. 😀
Last edited:
ok hmmm im not getting a good vibe about this design from you guys. I did actually try the original version of the amp but with 12ax7 and 6v6 and a 6.6k hammond trafo. I did not like the sound at all so I dismantled it. I was going to give it another shot but.....
Soooo can someone point me to a well designed 6v6 amp???
I did find these though:
http://www.joeltunnah.com/images/jt_6SN7_6V6_v2.jpg
Frankenhouse
Any thoughts? ideas? suggestion?
Soooo can someone point me to a well designed 6v6 amp???
I did find these though:
http://www.joeltunnah.com/images/jt_6SN7_6V6_v2.jpg
Frankenhouse
Any thoughts? ideas? suggestion?
Poindexter's Musical Machine. (He's on here, so you might want to look him up, and there are just esssssss-loads of threads dedicated to this particular project.) The one and only "drawback" to this design is that the 6V6s are being used as pseudotriodes. That does compromise on the output power, but 6V6s do make excellent pseudotriodes. (They're also excellent as pentode finals as well.)
This also uncomplicates the design since you won't need screen voltage regulators if you're not running the finals as pents.
I did actually consider that amp but I got scared when I saw it needs a -160Vdc. That means I would need an extra high voltage trafo, and im trying to keep costs down.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.