hi Zen Mod,
yes thank you, I understood what Papa said not completely to be honest.....
.....he says he took the Mu only because the R100 has the lower Vgs and the Aleph is not working good with the R100 for this reason.....
or does he say, the Mu is at any case better than the Aleph no matter if you take the R100 or the IRF240..........?
there I feel my bad English........ not understanding fully what he says............
yes thank you, I understood what Papa said not completely to be honest.....
.....he says he took the Mu only because the R100 has the lower Vgs and the Aleph is not working good with the R100 for this reason.....
or does he say, the Mu is at any case better than the Aleph no matter if you take the R100 or the IRF240..........?
there I feel my bad English........ not understanding fully what he says............
generg, english is my first language, electonics is my education, and I still don't always fully understand what he is trying to say. I beleive, we are not seeing the forest through the trees?
My take is; N.P. was responding to a question regarding replacing the IXTH6N part with an R100 device. I think he is saying if you want to use the R100, the mu follower topology is easier/better than an Aleph configuration. He only sites the lower Vgs as a reason? He also says that in mu follower the IRF240 does as well as the R100. For that reason why waste $25 on the CCS with an R100 when a $2.50 IRFP240 does as well. 😀
I'm not sure that he is ranking the mu follower higher/better than a similar Aleph circuit 😕
Like a fish without a bicycle 😀
My take is; N.P. was responding to a question regarding replacing the IXTH6N part with an R100 device. I think he is saying if you want to use the R100, the mu follower topology is easier/better than an Aleph configuration. He only sites the lower Vgs as a reason? He also says that in mu follower the IRF240 does as well as the R100. For that reason why waste $25 on the CCS with an R100 when a $2.50 IRFP240 does as well. 😀
I'm not sure that he is ranking the mu follower higher/better than a similar Aleph circuit 😕
Like a fish without a bicycle 😀
Pa is sayin' - if you're making a choice between Aleph CCS and mu - be aware that SS R100 is having lower Ugs (than mosfet) and that's the reason that little bjt in Aleph CCS will be starved ; so - mosfet is preferable
further - in mu , there is no significant difference between SS R100 vs. mosfet , so neither one is preferable from tech/sounding point of view
off course - each of them demands different mu conditions ( values of source resistors)
further - in mu , there is no significant difference between SS R100 vs. mosfet , so neither one is preferable from tech/sounding point of view
off course - each of them demands different mu conditions ( values of source resistors)
Hello my friends,😀😀😀
Thank you for your explanations and interpretations of the problem I saw....
Zen Mod says that the source resistors must be fitting to the demands of the different MU conditions, that is for sure correct.....
But how to calculate these resistors for R100 or IRF240 or even for the partner for instance the Sk82....?
Yes I saw some formula, very complicated, by the favor of Zen Mod, but it is very difficult to find the data to fill in.....
I think in two weeks I will start again my experiments with the SIT again, in my new experimental environment, and my heatsinks for the testbuildings have arrived......finally!🙂
Thank you for your explanations and interpretations of the problem I saw....
Zen Mod says that the source resistors must be fitting to the demands of the different MU conditions, that is for sure correct.....
But how to calculate these resistors for R100 or IRF240 or even for the partner for instance the Sk82....?
Yes I saw some formula, very complicated, by the favor of Zen Mod, but it is very difficult to find the data to fill in.....
I think in two weeks I will start again my experiments with the SIT again, in my new experimental environment, and my heatsinks for the testbuildings have arrived......finally!🙂
Well your right. The how to calc the necessary R values is the key knowledge we need? The case of the enhancement mode vs depletion mode is also opposite or different. In terms of enhancement mode, R100/IRF240 we need a voltage refrence not self generated, or more precisely generated above the output node. I beleive there is a function in these things where you can approach what the Aleph does with the mu follower type configuration.
I havent been taught or read all this theory yet but it really seems like the depletion mode part is set up for mu follower. Ideally, I believe the Drain of the lower FET should have something like a 1 ohm at the output node, and another 1 ohm to the Source of the top FET if your doing a R085 type mu follower. The Output is between the 1 ohms. The connection to the upper FET source is at the bottom of the 1 ohm. Another member has commented on this and I believ his comment to be valid that the top R shoult be ever so slightly higher value. You would realy need the best H.S. possible to do any better and lower D.F./output Z with the R085 but I think I might be able to pull that off?
I havent been taught or read all this theory yet but it really seems like the depletion mode part is set up for mu follower. Ideally, I believe the Drain of the lower FET should have something like a 1 ohm at the output node, and another 1 ohm to the Source of the top FET if your doing a R085 type mu follower. The Output is between the 1 ohms. The connection to the upper FET source is at the bottom of the 1 ohm. Another member has commented on this and I believ his comment to be valid that the top R shoult be ever so slightly higher value. You would realy need the best H.S. possible to do any better and lower D.F./output Z with the R085 but I think I might be able to pull that off?
That would be... the connection to the upper FETs Gate (not source) is at the bottom of the 1 ohm resistors...
I've forgotten who I promised this to, but here's the info on the Hammond 193V.
Not bad, and we get a nice efficency boost from the lower DCR iron core. You can put those 24V supplies to use now. I didn't experience any loss of inductance at 2A (or the rated 3A for that matter).
You could even run this one with a 20V supply @ 1.4A for a nice little 7W amp with 2% THD at full power.
No, I haven't listened to them. The measurements are in the pdf. Have fun.
Not bad, and we get a nice efficency boost from the lower DCR iron core. You can put those 24V supplies to use now. I didn't experience any loss of inductance at 2A (or the rated 3A for that matter).
You could even run this one with a 20V supply @ 1.4A for a nice little 7W amp with 2% THD at full power.
No, I haven't listened to them. The measurements are in the pdf. Have fun.
Attachments
🙂 michael, thank you again this is a nice simple alternative as i can use the same 18V transformer just running the secondary in parrallele instead of series 
as you know i'm a big fan of your first version with source resistor and bypass cap. i enjoy it every day , never have a SET tube amp sounding like that! i will try the hammond alternative soon and tell you my findings 🙂
as you know i'm a big fan of your first version with source resistor and bypass cap. i enjoy it every day , never have a SET tube amp sounding like that! i will try the hammond alternative soon and tell you my findings 🙂
Here's an idea for any of you who might be interested. A considerable drawback of SE amplifier design (there aren't many) is power supply noise finding its way to the output. That noise includes the obvious rectification artifacts, but even worse any noise generated by power supply capacitance. Electrolytic capacitors are for me the worst offenders in audio. A CCS helps with power supply noise, but adding a CCS introduces complexity and feedback into an otherwise simple, non-feedback amplifier. What to do?
One method is to operate two SIT devices in SE class-A balanced push-pull on the output using transformer loading and a single B+ supply. This would allow full or near-full cancellation of load currents through the two SIT devices, while summing power supply noise on the output. And it allows one to ditch the output electrolytic. The devices, of course, must be operated in balanced mode, which will require a balanced or transformer-fed input.
The resulting circuit departs from pure-SE design, but may offer more by way of benefits than disadvantages for those loving the simplicity of simple circuits.
One method is to operate two SIT devices in SE class-A balanced push-pull on the output using transformer loading and a single B+ supply. This would allow full or near-full cancellation of load currents through the two SIT devices, while summing power supply noise on the output. And it allows one to ditch the output electrolytic. The devices, of course, must be operated in balanced mode, which will require a balanced or transformer-fed input.
The resulting circuit departs from pure-SE design, but may offer more by way of benefits than disadvantages for those loving the simplicity of simple circuits.
Last edited:
I "tend" to prefer the power supply organized with 2 secondaries and bridges in series and caps filtering each bridge . 😎
A stab at an Aleph CS with a SIT
I'm not at all skilled enough to design a circuit, but I tried to add NP's Aleph CS to Michael's SIT amp as an idea.
Please feel free to correct mistakes or comment. I'm curious if this is a good idea or fatally flawed.
I'm not at all skilled enough to design a circuit, but I tried to add NP's Aleph CS to Michael's SIT amp as an idea.
Please feel free to correct mistakes or comment. I'm curious if this is a good idea or fatally flawed.
for both Mu and Aleph CCS , I would target same AC gain in both halves (upper and lower) , as starting point , then proceed .... either by THD meter , or ear , or both ;
probably most cunning plan is - in case of Mu - to use pot , as in sch posted by Generg
probably most cunning plan is - in case of Mu - to use pot , as in sch posted by Generg
the Mu pot is the greatest invention after the wheel 😀
and the inventor is an unknown capacity in Serbia.....😀
with the pot you can influence a bit the mix of distortions....
I prefer at the moment to have the second and third at the same level....
the best of both worlds for me.....😀
and the inventor is an unknown capacity in Serbia.....😀
with the pot you can influence a bit the mix of distortions....
I prefer at the moment to have the second and third at the same level....
the best of both worlds for me.....😀
oh no Zen Mod, I have so many SS it would be a SShame not to use them....😀😀
and Oh, why spineless?
and Oh, why spineless?
naah
just usual -quarter/year- troubles with my back ;
Jacco is throwing himself from roof regularly , I'm doing something similar with my spine
it seems that I'm in best age for biking , again ...
just usual -quarter/year- troubles with my back ;
Jacco is throwing himself from roof regularly , I'm doing something similar with my spine
it seems that I'm in best age for biking , again ...