That amp, I am fairly comfortable saying sounded better than most tube amps. So draw your own conclusions...🙂 IMO it is an indictment of 'most' tube circuits.
cheers,
Douglas
that is why i am building this amp.....
one thing, being dc coupled, is not subject to blocking distortions that cap coupled output tubes are...
i think that i have enough brain cells to make this amp a reality....
No lets be clear, Gary Pimm concludes that his Tabor design works better when implemented with Transistors. Thats a statement of observable fact by the designer.
His day job is system measurement so he is one of the few people who can back up that sort opf statement with empirical evidence to boot.
Shoog
With all respect, but in this case your build is far from being a Tabor amp.
Better change the name of the thread (you can do it 😀).
as the title of this thread mentions Tabor clone, it means topology is cloned, not the amp itself, i hope Garry Pimm does not mind...
the irons used in my builds bears no resemblance with any used by Gary Pimm...
i used two separate power traffos, one to supply the plates and another to supply filaments....
the irons used in my builds bears no resemblance with any used by Gary Pimm...
i used two separate power traffos, one to supply the plates and another to supply filaments....
No, it's not a Tabor clone at all when you leave the current source out of the output stage.
Now it's much more like a direct coupled amp with a differential input stage and local feedback; there are tons of those.
I guess Gary would raise his eyebrows....
Now it's much more like a direct coupled amp with a differential input stage and local feedback; there are tons of those.
I guess Gary would raise his eyebrows....
No we will not see....Gary is not active here at the moment so don't expect a response from him.
Personally I would not like it when I have put much effort in a design, offer it to the DIY community, and then other people "who think to know better" use it's name (Tabor) to mess around with it.
I heard the original tube Tabor many years ago; it's a great sounding amp.
Pretty sure that modifying the design will not be an improvement.
Personally I would not like it when I have put much effort in a design, offer it to the DIY community, and then other people "who think to know better" use it's name (Tabor) to mess around with it.
I heard the original tube Tabor many years ago; it's a great sounding amp.
Pretty sure that modifying the design will not be an improvement.
you are being too harsh, it is never about "knowing better"......
it is about being able to make do with the resources at hand,
this after all is diyaudio where members build things more than argue about it..
i am quite sure Garry's original amp would be better sounding.....
i just want to know what i can really do on my own...
it is about being able to make do with the resources at hand,
this after all is diyaudio where members build things more than argue about it..
i am quite sure Garry's original amp would be better sounding.....
i just want to know what i can really do on my own...
Class A push-pull and differential push-pull output stages have different characteristics as shown in the following graph, whether you can hear the difference, that's another story. Anyway, some food for thought...
App - Class A Push-Pull
diff - Differential Push-Pull (as used in Pimm's Tabor)
The graph courtesy of Ayumi Nakabayashi.
App - Class A Push-Pull
diff - Differential Push-Pull (as used in Pimm's Tabor)
The graph courtesy of Ayumi Nakabayashi.
the virtues of CCS as used in a differential amps are well known....
that is why ccs are always used in a long tail pair stages....
that is why ccs are always used in a long tail pair stages....
I have to agree that without the Output stage CCS it's not a Tabor.
I don't actually see the issue that makes you want to leave it out. A simple CCS can be built from a TL783 which is going to be just about as cheap as any other option and keep to the spirit of the original, with minimal performance hit.
Shoog
I don't actually see the issue that makes you want to leave it out. A simple CCS can be built from a TL783 which is going to be just about as cheap as any other option and keep to the spirit of the original, with minimal performance hit.
Shoog
Differential voltage amplifiers, perhaps, but not differential power amplifiers AFAIK.
i am making this amp with a cathode resistor bias initially,
then i will have a listening tests with friends and get their feedback...
if they liked it, it will stay that way,
then i am making another amp with a CCS right after this one..
i have LND150 mosfets and have on order some IXYS depletion mosfets,
1000volt/6A parts....not sure when i can lay my hands on those...
IC regulators as ccs are not for me, sorry....
then i will have a listening tests with friends and get their feedback...
if they liked it, it will stay that way,
then i am making another amp with a CCS right after this one..
i have LND150 mosfets and have on order some IXYS depletion mosfets,
1000volt/6A parts....not sure when i can lay my hands on those...
IC regulators as ccs are not for me, sorry....
i will rename this thread after i heard from the designer and after i have heard this amp live.....
the difference between a 500 ohm cathode bias resistor and a CCS is that the CCS have an impedance much much greater than 500 ohms, maybe in the tens of thousands of ohms...
There are many threads at the moment proving the contrary!
But go ahead.... build your Tabor clone 🙂
That's pretty well known🙂.
Something to consider though is that when using a solid state CCS in the output stage, clipping behaviour will be different ("hard" actually); that's why I suggested high efficiency loudspeakers (post 7), or to try a common choke with the right DCR instead.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.