Its a long thread... Yes, its been talked about right from the start. If there is shorting danger, like someone uses some connector that might go wrong, or experiments a lot, it can be clamped across the PMOS with a 150V 5W Zener. Better if someone has a 10M45S or DN2540, the CCS can be made depletion 450V or 400V, also losing the leds, and even better, if there is a spare it can be cascoded with minimum parts.
Hi! AndrewT.
I think , it is no problem, when V-in =300V, V-out 200V. But IrFo9240 is very hot.
I think the ideal is the difference between V-IN and v-out is about 30-50V
Thank
You can se in post 797, In my pre, I use C-R-C =30uF MKP- 470R-30uF MKP for my Pre.
My pre use 80mA one chanel. It is no hum or noise! You can try do that!
And My cricuit Pre818-E
Attachments
Hello quanghao
yes I saw that and I believe that your pre has absence of hum & noise, but my recommendation is for sonical reasons. I believe that a LC-filter sounds better.
Nice circuit around the 6H30, but this tube is not my cup of tea. As well I prefer interstage / transformer coupled stages.
Regards
Joao
300V that the MJE can stand + 50V difference = 350V in. Can take more dif above max 300 Vout due to the 200V margin of the IRFP, but it will be wasted heat for nothing. Will make it vulnerable with so much heat exposure also. How long was your Vout settle time from the moment of power on? Also you can clamp the IRFP with a 150V 5W zener across it, if it ever blows on you.
yes I saw that and I believe that your pre has absence of hum & noise, but my recommendation is for sonical reasons. I believe that a LC-filter sounds better.
Nice circuit around the 6H30, but this tube is not my cup of tea. As well I prefer interstage / transformer coupled stages.
Regards
Joao[/QUOTE]
Ok! i dont like fillter by chock!
transformer is good! You can use 2 tube 6h30!
thank
Nice circuit around the 6H30, but this tube is not my cup of tea. As well I prefer interstage / transformer coupled stages.
Regards
Joao[/QUOTE]
Ok! i dont like fillter by chock!
transformer is good! You can use 2 tube 6h30!
thank
What is the Imax for the latest revision?
Does it make sense to integrate it in the B+ of my Tube DAC Project?
Does it make sense to integrate it in the B+ of my Tube DAC Project?
No, its hot, and cable sensitive. Your build is up to the brim. I don't want it to be a GB BTW.
To my humble opinion* the SShvS regulator excels in applications where currents up to 100mA and voltages up to 300V are needed. Not simultaniously as power gives rise to a cooling issue with real big heatsinks, what holds for every shunt regulator. It's a constant voltage source by design.
I'm not familiar with your tube circuit, your DAC might either have a current or voltage output. In the case you want to make a differential tube amplifier it benefits from the operational quality of the constant current source. The quality of the PS has little influence (by nature) on the operation of the differential amp, with the exception of common mode noise. Gary Pimm has a complete CCS design on his site, also there's lot of others around -some simply made from two TO-92 semi's.
*Looking at a white, white world slowing down human activity one becomes aware the world does rotate.
I'm not familiar with your tube circuit, your DAC might either have a current or voltage output. In the case you want to make a differential tube amplifier it benefits from the operational quality of the constant current source. The quality of the PS has little influence (by nature) on the operation of the differential amp, with the exception of common mode noise. Gary Pimm has a complete CCS design on his site, also there's lot of others around -some simply made from two TO-92 semi's.
*Looking at a white, white world slowing down human activity one becomes aware the world does rotate.
Last edited:
Some more pictures. Dual mono Salas HV shunts implemented.
More focus, better dynamics.
Eatherway, mono or dual mono, the most significant parameter in my opinion is the cable length between the reg out and the audio circuit.
Small changes in the cable length bring major changes in overall tone.
I am not sure about the pre regulator cabling length effect, but until now it seems less critical.
I will let it burn in for a while before i convert it to simpler simplistic.
My 2SK170's are already ordered
More focus, better dynamics.
Eatherway, mono or dual mono, the most significant parameter in my opinion is the cable length between the reg out and the audio circuit.
Small changes in the cable length bring major changes in overall tone.
I am not sure about the pre regulator cabling length effect, but until now it seems less critical.
I will let it burn in for a while before i convert it to simpler simplistic.
My 2SK170's are already ordered
Attachments
Some more pictures. Dual mono Salas HV shunts implemented.
More focus, better dynamics.
Eatherway, mono or dual mono, the most significant parameter in my opinion is the cable length between the reg out and the audio circuit.
Small changes in the cable length bring major changes in overall tone.
I am not sure about the pre regulator cabling length effect, but until now it seems less critical.
I will let it burn in for a while before i convert it to simpler simplistic.
My 2SK170's are already ordered
Nice!
The B+ in the DAC is about 200V and the 2 Tubes needs max. 15mA, depends on the tubes used.
I think Your Cap is big, Youc can chage cap MKp 30uf - 470R-30uf.
Don need chock!! the sound is better! You can try do it!
Thank
You can see :
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/powe...stic-mosfet-hv-shunt-regs-80.html#post2006932
Post 796
Last edited: