Welcome! I hope I did not come across too much like 'Judge Judy (sorry could not resist). I hope that I am not one of the 'bullies'. If you thought I was, I apologise.
I would not look at anything you gain on this site as taking away from what you have learned, but rather building on it. If you love your valve (tube) amp building, then I really suggest getting the two books by Morgan Jones. I linked to one before, Building Valve Amplifiers. This book is about the physical construction of valve amps. It is the sister to 'Valve Amplifiers', which covers the theory. Morgan Jones writes in a style that I find engaging, and there is just so much good info in there. If you decide to buy, beware that Edition 4 of 'Valve Amplifiers' has just come out.
I think you will find that most people here just enjoy building things, so are not really interested in taking any business away from you. They are here because they find something engaging about building with vacuum tubes and listening to the results. Something that you have obviously found as well.
I doubt I will have anything to teach you, but there are some really great guys here with lots to offer, Like SY and Tubelab and various others that I hope you discover. Morgan Jones even hangs out sometimes (under a pseudonym though).
People here are generally friendly, though I am sure your opinion on that is tainted! That is because generally what is not respected is baloney 😉 If someone makes a claim, someone will test it! Conversely, if someone builds something that 'sounds good, but measures bad', it will be discussed - pros and cons and credit given where due. Like Morgan Jones stated in one of his books, if you are after parts per million distortion figures, build something out of sand 😉
I think that by accepting the safety advice offered you have earned a great amount of respect.
Once again, welcome!
I would not look at anything you gain on this site as taking away from what you have learned, but rather building on it. If you love your valve (tube) amp building, then I really suggest getting the two books by Morgan Jones. I linked to one before, Building Valve Amplifiers. This book is about the physical construction of valve amps. It is the sister to 'Valve Amplifiers', which covers the theory. Morgan Jones writes in a style that I find engaging, and there is just so much good info in there. If you decide to buy, beware that Edition 4 of 'Valve Amplifiers' has just come out.
I think you will find that most people here just enjoy building things, so are not really interested in taking any business away from you. They are here because they find something engaging about building with vacuum tubes and listening to the results. Something that you have obviously found as well.
I doubt I will have anything to teach you, but there are some really great guys here with lots to offer, Like SY and Tubelab and various others that I hope you discover. Morgan Jones even hangs out sometimes (under a pseudonym though).
People here are generally friendly, though I am sure your opinion on that is tainted! That is because generally what is not respected is baloney 😉 If someone makes a claim, someone will test it! Conversely, if someone builds something that 'sounds good, but measures bad', it will be discussed - pros and cons and credit given where due. Like Morgan Jones stated in one of his books, if you are after parts per million distortion figures, build something out of sand 😉
I think that by accepting the safety advice offered you have earned a great amount of respect.
Once again, welcome!
Last edited:
Hopefully Steve reads it, fixes the safety issues affecting his customers.
That is because generally what is not respected is baloney
evrytime im on this forum i try to learn from peoples success and mistake.
i love seeing ideas being pick apart, designs tested, stuff that i dont have the abillity to do, usually it all come to a conclusion and thats how i think is the best way ideas come to life.
For me, take some of you very seriously, you guys not only share your know how and expertise,
you also motivate me (a hobbiest and newby) to pay attention. i dont have a "master" or a teacher to help me but i am very proud of what i accomplish from forum like this and books.
that being said, i too hated when i see a **********, one that doesnt admits their wrong doing, especially when their stuff can accidently kill their "CUSTOMER".
this forum can only help you to be a better amp builder from scratch @#$%^&*…
what eva you want to call yourself.
That is because generally what is not respected is baloney
evrytime im on this forum i try to learn from peoples success and mistake.
i love seeing ideas being pick apart, designs tested, stuff that i dont have the abillity to do, usually it all come to a conclusion and thats how i think is the best way ideas come to life.
For me, take some of you very seriously, you guys not only share your know how and expertise,
you also motivate me (a hobbiest and newby) to pay attention. i dont have a "master" or a teacher to help me but i am very proud of what i accomplish from forum like this and books.
that being said, i too hated when i see a **********, one that doesnt admits their wrong doing, especially when their stuff can accidently kill their "CUSTOMER".
this forum can only help you to be a better amp builder from scratch @#$%^&*…
what eva you want to call yourself.
Welcome aboard Steve, I thought you would see the light. It's a good bunch of tube nuts here, you just have to get used to the rough and tumble of diverse opinions here, and often some humor of various shades too. Of course, verifiable opinions tend to get valued more highly among engineering and designer types. But then some things just aren't measurable yet in audio, so one also accumulates a store of anecdotal opinions with various levels of consensus.
Also, there is a lot of experimentation with new ideas and breaking new ground here, which is more often than not on shaky ground, and often not well accepted by traditionalists. I've also been rained on a few times myself. You just have to persist if you think you have something right. Experienced advice from a large group can get the obvious kinks out rapidly, or identify whats not working. Sometimes you just have to see the light that an idea is not working.
-------------------
Back to the paraphase and variants, which is what caught my interest in this thread in the first place. Seems to me that the plate load resistors on the two paraphase tubes could be CCS's or Gyrators, depending on the configuration. This should allow one to get lower distortion from the P.I. due to less loading. And less sensitivity to tube aging affects for the non-floating paraphase.
Using gyrator plate loads would allow putting a CCS tail under the two joined cathodes as well. This only makes sense to do for the fully symmetrical case (discussed earlier, aka Ultra See-Saw? maybe Full See-Saw would be more descriptive, both tubes having the same type feedback networks) where both tubes will have identical effect on the tail. This should alleviate the tuning problem too (loop gain = 1-epsilon), since the tube gain will now be largely determined by the Mu's rather than the gm's (there is of course still some light plate loading from the resistive feedback networks). Mu remaining fairly stable against aging effects.
Also, there is a lot of experimentation with new ideas and breaking new ground here, which is more often than not on shaky ground, and often not well accepted by traditionalists. I've also been rained on a few times myself. You just have to persist if you think you have something right. Experienced advice from a large group can get the obvious kinks out rapidly, or identify whats not working. Sometimes you just have to see the light that an idea is not working.
-------------------
Back to the paraphase and variants, which is what caught my interest in this thread in the first place. Seems to me that the plate load resistors on the two paraphase tubes could be CCS's or Gyrators, depending on the configuration. This should allow one to get lower distortion from the P.I. due to less loading. And less sensitivity to tube aging affects for the non-floating paraphase.
Using gyrator plate loads would allow putting a CCS tail under the two joined cathodes as well. This only makes sense to do for the fully symmetrical case (discussed earlier, aka Ultra See-Saw? maybe Full See-Saw would be more descriptive, both tubes having the same type feedback networks) where both tubes will have identical effect on the tail. This should alleviate the tuning problem too (loop gain = 1-epsilon), since the tube gain will now be largely determined by the Mu's rather than the gm's (there is of course still some light plate loading from the resistive feedback networks). Mu remaining fairly stable against aging effects.
Last edited:
Tim, I think that after getting past some emotional reactions, Steve agreed that safety issues needed to be addressed, so ragging at him is not productive. Quite the opposite, I think we should be delighted that he got something positive out of this discussion.
I did get a lot out of listening to you all. I had to weed out the negativity and put my ego aside, but I did get it. Understand that it will be a while before I will feel comfortable to add to your technical discussions as I am, as they say, once bitt'en twice shy! Besides, I have a bit of soldering to do today attaching a few ground wires on things and such.
Steve
Well,
We still gotta crack the paraphase Da Vinci Code..send for the
Knights Templar...The grail may be hidden in plain sight (remember to look in the shadows) .. 😀
LOL
Regards
M. Gregg
We still gotta crack the paraphase Da Vinci Code..send for the
Knights Templar...The grail may be hidden in plain sight (remember to look in the shadows) .. 😀
LOL
Regards
M. Gregg
Steve, when you attach the ground wire use a separate screw that is only used for the ground to chassis from the ground lug on the IEC connector or three wire ground cord if you use a strain relief mount.
Do not say, use a mounting screw for the transformer to attach the ground to chassis. The reason for using a separate screw mount for ground is to insure that no one ever accidentally leaves the ground unconnected when working on the rest of the chassis.
Not only will these guys tear apart a physical design, but they will do the same for schematics. Early on I felt a bit attacked when this happened on one of my proposed designs. Putting my ego aside I learned a lot from the experience.
Welcome aboard.
Do not say, use a mounting screw for the transformer to attach the ground to chassis. The reason for using a separate screw mount for ground is to insure that no one ever accidentally leaves the ground unconnected when working on the rest of the chassis.
Not only will these guys tear apart a physical design, but they will do the same for schematics. Early on I felt a bit attacked when this happened on one of my proposed designs. Putting my ego aside I learned a lot from the experience.
Welcome aboard.
I'm not advocating unsafe of dangerous practices while working at home. That wasn't the intent of my post, and apologize if it was misconstrued by anyone.
jeff
Last edited:
excellent! Welcome to the sometimes viscious but always helpful community.
I think we may have gained a very useful member....
I think we may have gained a very useful member....
So, I have refitted three amps and grounded them with new three prong cords and one with an IEC grounded. No issue with hum at all. I have a few left here to do and then I'll be contacting my customers. Again, thanks for the possible life saving advise.
Steve
Steve
De nada. If any of your clients' amps hum in their setup (they may be using a different preamp than you, and not every commercial manufacturer signal grounds their equipment correctly with respect to safety ground), there's some easy fixes for that.
Yep - I was. My experience in HR and education has been that those who can cheerfully front up to their own mistake are generally the better learners and teachers.
Welcome
- Status
- Not open for further replies.