Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jun 24, 3:34*pm, John Byrns wrote:

I want to see a schematic with all test results before I make up my
mind on Alex's FB "trick." It could be a clever trick, or a swindle.

However the network introduces both a zero and pole into the response, with
the
zero at a higher frequency than the pole. *Remember this network is just
another
tool in your toolbox; it is not a cure all and requires some sophistication
in
its application. *Now the one thing I know about stabilizing the low
frequency
response of a feedback system is that it is all about correctly placing the
poles, and zeros if there are any.


In any amp where there are say 2 CR coupled stages and a final stage
with LR then you have a recipe for LF instability and a poor margin of
stability at LF.


OK, I have worked through some of the math and understand more fully what is
going on with Alex's feedback network. As I said the network introduces both a
zero and a pole in the loop gain.

Ignoring the added pole for a moment, the zero can be placed so that it exactly
cancels the effect of one of the three poles in the amplifier you describe
above, with 2 CR coupled stages and a final stage with LR, effectively reducing
the number of low frequency poles by 1, making the LF stability problem easier
to deal with. The zero effectively cancels both the phase shift and amplitude
roll off caused by the pole that is being canceled. Unfortunately it is
impossible, at least so far as I know, to build a network with an isolated zero
such as I have described, so an actual network, such as Alex's, must include a
pole at a lower frequency. Hopefully this new pole won't cause us too much
trouble if we place it at a very low frequency where the loop gain has already
fallen well below 1.0 as a result of the other two remaining poles that weren't
canceled.

Now the obvious question is, why bother with this extra complexity when we could
simply directly move one of the 3 poles to a very low frequency, as would
probably be part of the normal pole staggering process anyway? I will leave
that for others to comment on as I have not personally mucked about in my
workshop with amplifiers that have 3 LF poles. I suspect that one reason may
have to do with LF overload when using a Bean Counter approved OPT.

I can see how Alex's network has the potential to resolve a problem I have
encountered when mucking about with simpler amplifiers having only 2 poles.
When using OPTs designed by Bean Counters, especially SE OPTs, there is a
tendency towards LF overload in the OPT and final tube(s). I have attempted to
mitigate this problem by choosing a relatively high pole frequency for the
interstage coupling network to keep LF signals out of the OPT and final tube(s).
This puts the interstage pole too close to the pole caused by the OPT which then
causes a bump in the ³CLG² low frequency response, plus of course it isn't
really a very good solution to the LF overload problem. It occurs to me that
Alex's feedback network might also offer a solution to the OPT saturation
problem in Bean Counter designed OPTs, just as it offers a solution to the input
stage problem.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

On Jun 26, 2:25*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*Patrick Turner wrote:





On Jun 24, 3:34*pm, John Byrns wrote:


I want to see a schematic with all test results before I make up my
mind on Alex's FB "trick." It could be a clever trick, or a swindle.


However the network introduces both a zero and pole into the response, with
the
zero at a higher frequency than the pole. *Remember this network is just
another
tool in your toolbox; it is not a cure all and requires some sophistication
in
its application. *Now the one thing I know about stabilizing the low
frequency
response of a feedback system is that it is all about correctly placing the
poles, and zeros if there are any.


In any amp where there are say 2 CR coupled stages and a final stage
with LR then you have a recipe for LF instability and a poor margin of
stability at LF.


OK, I have worked through some of the math and understand more fully what is
going on with Alex's feedback network. *As I said the network introduces both a
zero and a pole in the loop gain.

Ignoring the added pole for a moment, the zero can be placed so that it exactly
cancels the effect of one of the three poles in the amplifier you describe
above, with 2 CR coupled stages and a final stage with LR, effectively reducing
the number of low frequency poles by 1, making the LF stability problem easier
to deal with.


I wish I could be so sure. Just because you have in theory "cancelled
out" one devil it doesn't mean you've done much, especially
considering that the Laex FB path renders the FB amp to be a cathode
follower at DC, when you have no ability at all for the V0 to follow
and input at DC. The circuit needs to be built and tested. But notice
how silent and bone lazy everyone is about the issue. They just don't
want to get out of the their arm chairs. How can I have respect for
laziness?

*The zero effectively cancels both the phase shift and amplitude
roll off caused by the pole that is being canceled. *Unfortunately it is
impossible, at least so far as I know, to build a network with an isolated zero
such as I have described, so an actual network, such as Alex's, must include a
pole at a lower frequency. *Hopefully this new pole won't cause us too much
trouble if we place it at a very low frequency where the loop gain has already
fallen well below 1.0 as a result of the other two remaining poles that weren't
canceled.

Now the obvious question is, why bother with this extra complexity when we could
simply directly move one of the 3 poles to a very low frequency, as would
probably be part of the normal pole staggering process anyway? *I will leave
that for others to comment on as I have not personally mucked about in my
workshop with amplifiers that have 3 LF poles. *I suspect that one reason may
have to do with LF overload when using a Bean Counter approved OPT.


Its not always convenient to move poles down, and often it merely
moves the oscillaton F lower. It can be exasperating to find that even
if you increase coupling caps from say 0.22uF to 2.2uF, the trace on
the CRO still slowly rises and falls because Fo has just gone lower.

But you don't need a bean counter designed OPT to give a pole that is
at an F too high. You could have a well designed OPT for an SE amp
which will is designed to saturate at 20Hz at full PO and yet it
oscillates at LF. This is because the permeability of the core has
been much reduced by the air gap from the maximum one might find in a
PP OPT with fully interleaved laminations. So I have found my shelving
network especially effective in SE amps. The Williamson PP amp
required Lp = 100H minimum with triode Ra-a of 3k2 plus RLa-a = 10k in
parallel, ie, the ratio of RAA to Lp = 2k4:100H, giving a pole at
3.8Hz. With say 4 x EL34 in parallel SET, Ra = 310 ohms, RL might be
1k0, so RA = 236 ohms. Lp might be 8H to give XLp = 1k0 at 20Hz, so
the -3dB response pole is at 236 / ( 6.28 x 8 ) = 4.7Hz. The SE amp
is then in theory slightly worse off with regard to phase shift at
LF.

My shelving network is especially effective where the OPT has far less
inductance than it should and usually the Fsat is also way too high,
eg, in most old radios the OPTs are allowed to saturate at 70Hz. This
is why they are so small in size; Afe is 1/4 of the size needed for hi-
fi, for the number of turns used.

In the case of a pentode or beam tetrode SE OP tube, the open loop LF
pole is determined by the RLa and the Lp, and Ra has little effect
because Ra is such a high R.
So say you have 4 x EL34 in parallel pentode then RLa = 1k2, and Lp
needs to be 9.6H and the response is down 3dB at 20Hz. If the speaker
load is high, or there is no speaker connected, then the LF open loop
pole is between Ra and Lp, and if Ra for the 4 x EL34 = 4k0, then pole
rises to 66Hz. One cannot easily move the pole.

So, just how Alexe's brainchild works in all conditions remains to be
established. Unconditional stability is mandatory in all my amp
designs as it is in all other reputable brand names.


I can see how Alex's network has the potential to resolve a problem I have
encountered when mucking about with simpler amplifiers having only 2 poles. *
When using OPTs designed by Bean Counters, especially SE OPTs, there is a
tendency towards LF overload in the OPT and final tube(s). *


Nearly all the SE amps from brand names have Fsat too high and Lp too
low. And so do many PP amps. amps with only 2 stages like Quad-II have
better LF stability with shelving networks. They are inherently stable
because of their single CR coupling and OPT LR but the trace wobbles
after going from high level to zero level. It remains to be seen if
they'd enjoy a cap in the FB network.


I have attempted to
mitigate this problem by choosing a relatively high pole frequency for the
interstage coupling network to keep LF signals out of the OPT and final tube(s). *
This puts the interstage pole too close to the pole caused by the OPT which then
causes a bump in the ³CLG² low frequency response, plus of course it isn't
really a very good solution to the LF overload problem. *It occurs to me that
Alex's feedback network might also offer a solution to the OPT saturation
problem in Bean Counter designed OPTs, just as it offers a solution to the input
stage problem.


Mere postulations John. The only real truth is known when theory is
applied.

Patrick Turner.
  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Alex Pogossov Alex Pogossov is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers


"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jun 24, 3:34 pm, John Byrns wrote:

I want to see a schematic with all test results before I make up my
mind on Alex's FB "trick." It could be a clever trick, or a swindle.

However the network introduces both a zero and pole into the response,
with
the
zero at a higher frequency than the pole. Remember this network is just
another
tool in your toolbox; it is not a cure all and requires some
sophistication
in
its application. Now the one thing I know about stabilizing the low
frequency
response of a feedback system is that it is all about correctly placing
the
poles, and zeros if there are any.


In any amp where there are say 2 CR coupled stages and a final stage
with LR then you have a recipe for LF instability and a poor margin of
stability at LF.


OK, I have worked through some of the math and understand more fully what
is
going on with Alex's feedback network. As I said the network introduces
both a
zero and a pole in the loop gain.

Ignoring the added pole for a moment, the zero can be placed so that it
exactly
cancels the effect of one of the three poles in the amplifier you describe
above, with 2 CR coupled stages and a final stage with LR, effectively
reducing
the number of low frequency poles by 1, making the LF stability problem
easier
to deal with. The zero effectively cancels both the phase shift and
amplitude
roll off caused by the pole that is being canceled. Unfortunately it is
impossible, at least so far as I know, to build a network with an isolated
zero
such as I have described, so an actual network, such as Alex's, must
include a
pole at a lower frequency. Hopefully this new pole won't cause us too
much
trouble if we place it at a very low frequency where the loop gain has
already
fallen well below 1.0 as a result of the other two remaining poles that
weren't
canceled.

Now the obvious question is, why bother with this extra complexity when we
could
simply directly move one of the 3 poles to a very low frequency, as would
probably be part of the normal pole staggering process anyway? I will
leave
that for others to comment on as I have not personally mucked about in my
workshop with amplifiers that have 3 LF poles. I suspect that one reason
may
have to do with LF overload when using a Bean Counter approved OPT.

I can see how Alex's network has the potential to resolve a problem I have
encountered when mucking about with simpler amplifiers having only 2
poles.
When using OPTs designed by Bean Counters, especially SE OPTs, there is a
tendency towards LF overload in the OPT and final tube(s). I have
attempted to
mitigate this problem by choosing a relatively high pole frequency for the
interstage coupling network to keep LF signals out of the OPT and final
tube(s).
This puts the interstage pole too close to the pole caused by the OPT
which then
causes a bump in the ³CLG² low frequency response, plus of course it isn't
really a very good solution to the LF overload problem. It occurs to me
that
Alex's feedback network might also offer a solution to the OPT saturation
problem in Bean Counter designed OPTs, just as it offers a solution to the
input
stage problem.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/


You grasped the idea perfectly well John. This frequency compensation is
useful to prevent a lousy OPT and 6AQ5 overloading in a lousy boring audio
amp found in those boring AA5 style radios.

Below is the sequence of mods you do to improve the radio.
1. In an AM detector you remove a cap coupling a detector load (470K||100pF)
to the volume control (1M pot). In fact you are making the volume control
the detector load. This is for the detector to be able to handle nearly 100%
modulation. But now you det DC on the input of the audio amp.
2. You decouple this DC from the pot wiper by a 0.02...0.05uF, but you need
10M input impedance (grid leak) so that the AM detector is not loaded and
100% modulation is still handled.
3. On most stations your AM detector delivers 1...4V of audio, while
sensitivity of a typical boring feedbackless two-stage audio amp is
100...200mV. The radio always works with volume control close to minimum.
The speaker is boomy (not damped), distortion is high. You want to trade the
sensitivity excess for distortion and apply NFB, reducing sensitivity to
0.5...1V. You are enjoying tight crispy sound, but THAT IS WHERE PROBLEMS
BEGIN.
4. Now the bandwidth of your amp is in theory goes to 5...10Hz, but because
of the lousy OPT, these low frequencies do not reach your ears, but only
overload the 6AQ5, since the error signal becomes too large at low
frequencies.
5. Note that neither the american aggressive LF cutoff by reducing
interstage cap to 2000pF nor the Patrick's shelving does not work, since
still yjr NFB is pushing to maintaim unmaintainable LF output, the error
signal is large, the first stage is overloading, and (IMPORTANT!) since the
shelving is virtually a differentiator, it accentuates all the harmonics
generated in the overloaded 1-st stage and feeds them to the 6AQ5. Instead
of overloading the 6AQ5 we have emphasized distortion from the first stage.
6. That is where you need this RRC compensation in the feedback to roll the
low-frequency response of the amp in line with the capability of the lousy
OPT. Typically from 80....100Hz down. Applying the RRC divider provides
undistorted output down to 10...25Hz,
because the error signal remains under control.
7. However at the frequencies lower than 10...25Hz, where the NFB RRC
network levels out at 100% beta, the error signal continues to rise. This
VLF content caused by fadings, AGC knocked by atmospheric interference, etc.
is smaller, and some might stop here, but a purist might like to prevent
overloading even at VLF.
8. To do the above one needs to degenerate the first stage gain, rather than
to use a Partick's attenuator after it. To degenerate the 1-st stage gain
you need to place say 22K resistor in series with the 1-st stage cathode,
and shunt this resistor by a 0.22...0.47uF capacitor. Thus for medium
frequencies the 1-st stage will be working as usual, but ay low frequencies
the transconductance will be degenerating with the perfect linearity of the
first stage maintained. It is the same shelving, but implemented in a wise
linear mode. (Of course the grid leak can not be taken to GND any more, it
should be connected to the cathode or a tap in this 22K resistor.) At
infinitely low frequencies the gain of the first stage is to be degenerated
to 10...20 so that the 1-st stage output is just below the negative bias of
6AQ5 and the later is never overloaded.

Usually I apply mods up to #7 and sometimes #8 too if I can find enough free
solder lugs around the 1-st audio stage tube. Of course, all of the above
implies the cathode of the 1-st audio tube has to be free of duo-diode
functionality. That forces to use separate diodes for AGC and the AM
detector. In some cases instead of 6Q7, 6B8, 6AV6, etc. I might use a 6SL7
tube with one triode as the 1-st audio and the other triode as a diode for
the AM detector, and a silicon diode as an AGC detector.

Regards,
Alex


  #44   Report Post  
John L Stewart John L Stewart is offline
Senior Member
 
Location: Toronto
Posts: 301
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Pogossov View Post
"flipper" wrote in message
-------------------
Even if an amp is stable without the shelving network, shelving should
be used especially where there is some peaking in the region where "we
don't intend to amplify anything that low anyway" as you say. The
shelving improves overload charactecter and saturation effect
behaviour.


Yes, I'm sure the OP will appreciate improved overload characteristics
at frequencies that will never be presented to the amplifier.


Do you want rumble (from say a pick-up playing a warped record) driving your
amp to saturation, if your amp is close to LF oscillation?
One solution is the use of a bandwidth limiting network on the front end of an amp. I too at that time long ago (40 years!!) had similar concerns. First of all in those days an important program source was the turntable & still is with many listeners.

These were not always perfect so that rumble was a concern.

Another concern had to do with the possibility of driving the loudspeaker at frequencies below it’s normal operating range, perhaps by the above mentioned turntable rumble. These two problems either separately or together are a good recipe for Intermodulation Distortion both in the speaker & the amp.

I was also troubled by possible damage to the output tubes or the speakers caused by switching transients. As a result, I devised a passive HP filter for the amps front end which is two stage rather than one.

To do this you need to arrange the impedance of the second section to be in the range five to ten times that of the first. That’s how I arranged the gain control in the first section & something of higher impedance in the second section. I did not believe a low pass filter made sense at this point.
Here is the response of the high pass network

High Pass Section- 3 db down @ 20 hz
44 db down @ One hz
170 degree phase shift 12 db / octave
Attached Images
 
  #45   Report Post  
John L Stewart John L Stewart is offline
Senior Member
 
Location: Toronto
Posts: 301
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Pogossov View Post
"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jun 24, 3:34 pm, John Byrns wrote:

I want to see a schematic with all test results before I make up my
mind on Alex's FB "trick." It could be a clever trick, or a swindle.

However the network introduces both a zero and pole into the response,
with
the
zero at a higher frequency than the pole. Remember this network is just
another
tool in your toolbox; it is not a cure all and requires some
sophistication
in
its application. Now the one thing I know about stabilizing the low
frequency
response of a feedback system is that it is all about correctly placing
the
poles, and zeros if there are any.


In any amp where there are say 2 CR coupled stages and a final stage
with LR then you have a recipe for LF instability and a poor margin of
stability at LF.


OK, I have worked through some of the math and understand more fully what
is
going on with Alex's feedback network. As I said the network introduces
both a
zero and a pole in the loop gain.

Ignoring the added pole for a moment, the zero can be placed so that it
exactly
cancels the effect of one of the three poles in the amplifier you describe
above, with 2 CR coupled stages and a final stage with LR, effectively
reducing
the number of low frequency poles by 1, making the LF stability problem
easier
to deal with. The zero effectively cancels both the phase shift and
amplitude
roll off caused by the pole that is being canceled. Unfortunately it is
impossible, at least so far as I know, to build a network with an isolated
zero
such as I have described, so an actual network, such as Alex's, must
include a
pole at a lower frequency. Hopefully this new pole won't cause us too
much
trouble if we place it at a very low frequency where the loop gain has
already
fallen well below 1.0 as a result of the other two remaining poles that
weren't
canceled.

Now the obvious question is, why bother with this extra complexity when we
could
simply directly move one of the 3 poles to a very low frequency, as would
probably be part of the normal pole staggering process anyway? I will
leave
that for others to comment on as I have not personally mucked about in my
workshop with amplifiers that have 3 LF poles. I suspect that one reason
may
have to do with LF overload when using a Bean Counter approved OPT.

I can see how Alex's network has the potential to resolve a problem I have
encountered when mucking about with simpler amplifiers having only 2
poles.
When using OPTs designed by Bean Counters, especially SE OPTs, there is a
tendency towards LF overload in the OPT and final tube(s). I have
attempted to
mitigate this problem by choosing a relatively high pole frequency for the
interstage coupling network to keep LF signals out of the OPT and final
tube(s).
This puts the interstage pole too close to the pole caused by the OPT
which then
causes a bump in the ³CLG² low frequency response, plus of course it isn't
really a very good solution to the LF overload problem. It occurs to me
that
Alex's feedback network might also offer a solution to the OPT saturation
problem in Bean Counter designed OPTs, just as it offers a solution to the
input
stage problem.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/


You grasped the idea perfectly well John. This frequency compensation is
useful to prevent a lousy OPT and 6AQ5 overloading in a lousy boring audio
amp found in those boring AA5 style radios.

Below is the sequence of mods you do to improve the radio.
1. In an AM detector you remove a cap coupling a detector load (470K||100pF)
to the volume control (1M pot). In fact you are making the volume control
the detector load. This is for the detector to be able to handle nearly 100%
modulation. But now you det DC on the input of the audio amp.
2. You decouple this DC from the pot wiper by a 0.02...0.05uF, but you need
10M input impedance (grid leak) so that the AM detector is not loaded and
100% modulation is still handled.
3. On most stations your AM detector delivers 1...4V of audio, while
sensitivity of a typical boring feedbackless two-stage audio amp is
100...200mV. The radio always works with volume control close to minimum.
The speaker is boomy (not damped), distortion is high. You want to trade the
sensitivity excess for distortion and apply NFB, reducing sensitivity to
0.5...1V. You are enjoying tight crispy sound, but THAT IS WHERE PROBLEMS
BEGIN.
4. Now the bandwidth of your amp is in theory goes to 5...10Hz, but because
of the lousy OPT, these low frequencies do not reach your ears, but only
overload the 6AQ5, since the error signal becomes too large at low
frequencies.
5. Note that neither the american aggressive LF cutoff by reducing
interstage cap to 2000pF nor the Patrick's shelving does not work, since
still yjr NFB is pushing to maintaim unmaintainable LF output, the error
signal is large, the first stage is overloading, and (IMPORTANT!) since the
shelving is virtually a differentiator, it accentuates all the harmonics
generated in the overloaded 1-st stage and feeds them to the 6AQ5. Instead
of overloading the 6AQ5 we have emphasized distortion from the first stage.
6. That is where you need this RRC compensation in the feedback to roll the
low-frequency response of the amp in line with the capability of the lousy
OPT. Typically from 80....100Hz down. Applying the RRC divider provides
undistorted output down to 10...25Hz,
because the error signal remains under control.
7. However at the frequencies lower than 10...25Hz, where the NFB RRC
network levels out at 100% beta, the error signal continues to rise. This
VLF content caused by fadings, AGC knocked by atmospheric interference, etc.
is smaller, and some might stop here, but a purist might like to prevent
overloading even at VLF.
8. To do the above one needs to degenerate the first stage gain, rather than
to use a Partick's attenuator after it. To degenerate the 1-st stage gain
you need to place say 22K resistor in series with the 1-st stage cathode,
and shunt this resistor by a 0.22...0.47uF capacitor. Thus for medium
frequencies the 1-st stage will be working as usual, but ay low frequencies
the transconductance will be degenerating with the perfect linearity of the
first stage maintained. It is the same shelving, but implemented in a wise
linear mode. (Of course the grid leak can not be taken to GND any more, it
should be connected to the cathode or a tap in this 22K resistor.) At
infinitely low frequencies the gain of the first stage is to be degenerated
to 10...20 so that the 1-st stage output is just below the negative bias of
6AQ5 and the later is never overloaded.

Usually I apply mods up to #7 and sometimes #8 too if I can find enough free
solder lugs around the 1-st audio stage tube. Of course, all of the above
implies the cathode of the 1-st audio tube has to be free of duo-diode
functionality. That forces to use separate diodes for AGC and the AM
detector. In some cases instead of 6Q7, 6B8, 6AV6, etc. I might use a 6SL7
tube with one triode as the 1-st audio and the other triode as a diode for
the AM detector, and a silicon diode as an AGC detector.

Regards,
Alex
Hey Alex, is this your proposed audio section for the AA5, Etc? Looks like a 'GO' to me.

Cheers, John
Attached Images
 


  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jun 26, 2:25*am, John Byrns wrote:

Now the obvious question is, why bother with this extra complexity when we
could
simply directly move one of the 3 poles to a very low frequency, as would
probably be part of the normal pole staggering process anyway? *I will
leave
that for others to comment on as I have not personally mucked about in my
workshop with amplifiers that have 3 LF poles. *I suspect that one reason
may
have to do with LF overload when using a Bean Counter approved OPT.


Its not always convenient to move poles down, and often it merely
moves the oscillaton F lower. It can be exasperating to find that even
if you increase coupling caps from say 0.22uF to 2.2uF, the trace on
the CRO still slowly rises and falls because Fo has just gone lower.


Hi Patrick,

The phrasing of your comment suggests that you are speaking of moving all the
poles down, in which case as you say "Fo has just gone lower". What I was
considering was moving just one pole down in frequency. This leads directly to
the question of how you choose your pole frequencies? You have explained how
your LF shelving network improves LF stability, although with the risk of
pushing the input stage closer to overload, what you haven't explained, at least
that I remember, is how you choose your pole frequencies, especially in an
amplifier with 3 poles like we are discussing?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #47   Report Post  
John L Stewart John L Stewart is offline
Senior Member
 
Location: Toronto
Posts: 301
Smile

[8. To do the above one needs to degenerate the first stage gain, rather than
to use a Partick's attenuator after it. To degenerate the 1-st stage gain
you need to place say 22K resistor in series with the 1-st stage cathode,
and shunt this resistor by a 0.22...0.47uF capacitor. Thus for medium
frequencies the 1-st stage will be working as usual, but ay low frequencies
the transconductance will be degenerating with the perfect linearity of the
first stage maintained. It is the same shelving, but implemented in a wise
linear mode. (Of course the grid leak can not be taken to GND any more, it
should be connected to the cathode or a tap in this 22K resistor.) At
infinitely low frequencies the gain of the first stage is to be degenerated
to 10...20 so that the 1-st stage output is just below the negative bias of
6AQ5 and the later is never overloaded.

Usually I apply mods up to #7 and sometimes #8 too if I can find enough free
solder lugs around the 1-st audio stage tube. Of course, all of the above
implies the cathode of the 1-st audio tube has to be free of duo-diode
functionality. That forces to use separate diodes for AGC and the AM
detector. In some cases instead of 6Q7, 6B8, 6AV6, etc. I might use a 6SL7
tube with one triode as the 1-st audio and the other triode as a diode for
the AM detector, and a silicon diode as an AGC detector.

Regards,
Alex[/quote]

Here it is again with the 1st AF grid leak corrected. The NFB network should probably be conjugate with the 1st AF cathode network but that gets this one to a 3 microfarad NFB cap.

But otherwise would be OK.

Cheers, John
Attached Images
 
  #48   Report Post  
John L Stewart John L Stewart is offline
Senior Member
 
Location: Toronto
Posts: 301
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by John L Stewart View Post
[8. To do the above one needs to degenerate the first stage gain, rather than
to use a Partick's attenuator after it. To degenerate the 1-st stage gain
you need to place say 22K resistor in series with the 1-st stage cathode,
and shunt this resistor by a 0.22...0.47uF capacitor. Thus for medium
frequencies the 1-st stage will be working as usual, but ay low frequencies
the transconductance will be degenerating with the perfect linearity of the
first stage maintained. It is the same shelving, but implemented in a wise
linear mode. (Of course the grid leak can not be taken to GND any more, it
should be connected to the cathode or a tap in this 22K resistor.) At
infinitely low frequencies the gain of the first stage is to be degenerated
to 10...20 so that the 1-st stage output is just below the negative bias of
6AQ5 and the later is never overloaded.

Usually I apply mods up to #7 and sometimes #8 too if I can find enough free
solder lugs around the 1-st audio stage tube. Of course, all of the above
implies the cathode of the 1-st audio tube has to be free of duo-diode
functionality. That forces to use separate diodes for AGC and the AM
detector. In some cases instead of 6Q7, 6B8, 6AV6, etc. I might use a 6SL7
tube with one triode as the 1-st audio and the other triode as a diode for
the AM detector, and a silicon diode as an AGC detector.

Regards,
Alex
Here it is again with the 1st AF grid leak corrected. The NFB network should probably be conjugate with the 1st AF cathode network but that gets this one to a 3 microfarad NFB cap.

But otherwise would be OK.

Cheers, John[/quote]

Hello Again Alex- I checked this cct again & find the cutoff begins at an f1 about 10X too high using the CR network you recommended, 0.22 Ck & 22K Rk. Have a look at Fig. 12.3B, p484 in RDH4 for guidance. The CR time constant appears to predict a point well down on the curve, not the -3db point.

Your proposed cct fix still looks quite useful for the application discussed.

Cheers, John

Cheers, John
Attached Images
 
  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

snip for brevity.

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/


You grasped the idea perfectly well John. This frequency compensation is
useful to prevent a lousy OPT and 6AQ5 overloading in a lousy boring audio
amp found in those boring AA5 style radios.


I agree with everything Alex says below except for a few things.

In most old radios with DC flow across the volume control pot track
the adjustment of the volume is often very noisy after the pot has
aged a few years.

So instead of the conventional arrangements put forward by RDH and
most others to avoid parts costs I will have the last IFT coil biased
at say +50V at one end, and the live end goes to a triode grid of 1/2
12AU7 CF buffer to remove any loading effect of diode detection on the
last IFT LC. Then I use Ge diode feeding RC circuit, and this can
directly feed second 1/2 12AU7 CF buffer and then usual CR coupling to
any a volume control and while employing time passive poles to give
say -3dB at 30Hz before any power amp which has NFB. I often add in
another 12AU7 gain stage for tone control to boost/cut treble; bass in
AM is usually OK.

To slightly widen AF response the Q of all IFTs may be reduced by
strapping 100k across each coil. It doesn't work in all sets, but may
be tried. There is a simple method explained in RDH4 to add a few
turns of fine wire around the primary of IFT1 and switch it to being
in series with the sec of IFT1 which will give a doble peak to IFT
response which effectively increases IF channel bandwidth from a
typical 4kHz to 8 kHz. Quad used it.
I've used it - finally there is the the treble which most sets refuse
to give me.

I like to use paralleled 12AX7 as V1 and EL34 in triode as V2 for the
audio amp and with 12dB global NFB.
This works far better than anything with 6V6 or EL84 etc.

The Ge diode in the detector is biased on with a low current in the R.
Its works best with high level signals and up to 100% mod, with 10Vrms
available if you want it.

But anyone could use the normal arrangement of IFT plus tube
rectifiers found in IF amp tubes like 6N8 and thus get say -2Vdc
generated by a carrier with 2pk volts of signal. at 100% mod the Vpk-
pk of audio = 4V, so max audio = 1.4V, no?

The audio signal with negative vdc and some 455kHz ripple could be
direct coupled to a CF triode buffer stage but you'd need a -150Vdc
rail for the cathode resistor, while the anode would go to a +100V
supply. The CF buffer and negative rail was viewed as a waste of money
in 1950, so it was never done. But there's no reason why it can't be
done NOW. And the screen voltage applied to mixer and IF amp is best
regulated at 100Vdc, so that's a good point of supply with CF anodes .

I don't much like tubes like the 6AV6 with grounded cathodes and 10M
grid leak biasing.

The very low F signals generated in AM sets don't seem to cause any
problems in anything I have made.

Patrick Turner.



Below is the sequence of mods you do to improve the radio.
1. In an AM detector you remove a cap coupling a detector load (470K||100pF)
to the volume control (1M pot). In fact you are making the volume control
the detector load. This is for the detector to be able to handle nearly 100%
modulation. But now you det DC on the input of the audio amp.
2. You decouple this DC from the pot wiper by a 0.02...0.05uF, but you need
10M input impedance (grid leak) so that the AM detector is not loaded and
100% modulation is still handled.
3. On most stations your AM detector delivers 1...4V of audio, while
sensitivity of a typical boring feedbackless two-stage audio amp is
100...200mV. The radio always works with volume control close to minimum.
The speaker is boomy (not damped), distortion is high. You want to trade the
sensitivity excess for distortion and apply NFB, reducing sensitivity to
0.5...1V. You are enjoying tight crispy sound, but THAT IS WHERE PROBLEMS
BEGIN.
4. Now the bandwidth of your amp is in theory goes to 5...10Hz, but because
of the lousy OPT, these low frequencies do not reach your ears, but only
overload the 6AQ5, since the error signal becomes too large at low
frequencies.
5. Note that neither the american aggressive LF cutoff by reducing
interstage cap to 2000pF nor the Patrick's shelving does not work, since
still yjr NFB is pushing to maintaim unmaintainable LF output, the error
signal is large, the first stage is overloading, and (IMPORTANT!) since the
shelving is virtually a differentiator, it accentuates all the harmonics
generated in the overloaded 1-st stage and feeds them to the 6AQ5. Instead
of overloading the 6AQ5 we have emphasized distortion from the first stage.
6. That is where you need this RRC compensation in the feedback to roll the
low-frequency response of the amp in line with the capability of the lousy
OPT. Typically from 80....100Hz down. Applying the RRC divider provides
undistorted output down to 10...25Hz,
because the error signal remains under control.
7. However at the frequencies lower than 10...25Hz, where the NFB RRC
network levels out at 100% beta, the error signal continues to rise. This
VLF content caused by fadings, AGC knocked by atmospheric interference, etc.
is smaller, and some might stop here, but a purist might like to prevent
overloading even at VLF.
8. To do the above one needs to degenerate the first stage gain, rather than
to use a Partick's attenuator after it. To degenerate the 1-st stage gain
you need to place say 22K resistor in series with the 1-st stage cathode,
and shunt this resistor by a 0.22...0.47uF capacitor. Thus for medium
frequencies the 1-st stage will be working as usual, but ay low frequencies
the transconductance will be degenerating with the perfect linearity of the
first stage maintained. It is the same shelving, but implemented in a wise
linear mode. (Of course the grid leak can not be taken to GND any more, it
should be connected to the cathode or a tap in this 22K resistor.) At
infinitely low frequencies the gain of the first stage is to be degenerated
to 10...20 so that the 1-st stage output is just below the negative bias of
6AQ5 and the later is never overloaded.

Usually I apply mods up to #7 and sometimes #8 too if I can find enough free
solder lugs around the 1-st audio stage tube. Of course, all of the above
implies the cathode of the 1-st audio tube has to be free of duo-diode
functionality. That forces to use separate diodes for AGC and the AM
detector. In some cases instead of 6Q7, 6B8, 6AV6, etc. I might use a 6SL7
tube with one triode as the 1-st audio and the other triode as a diode for
the AM detector, and a silicon diode as an AGC detector.

Regards,
Alex- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Alex Pogossov Alex Pogossov is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
.........................
In most old radios with DC flow across the volume control pot track
the adjustment of the volume is often very noisy after the pot has
aged a few years.

So instead of the conventional arrangements put forward by RDH and
most others to avoid parts costs I will have the last IFT coil biased
at say +50V at one end, and the live end goes to a triode grid of 1/2
12AU7 CF buffer to remove any loading effect of diode detection on the
last IFT LC. Then I use Ge diode feeding RC circuit, and this can
directly feed second 1/2 12AU7 CF buffer and then usual CR coupling to
any a volume control and while employing time passive poles to give
say -3dB at 30Hz before any power amp which has NFB. I often add in
another 12AU7 gain stage for tone control to boost/cut treble; bass in
AM is usually OK.

Alex:
Is adding two extra tubes a reasonable "mod"? It is the radio redesign. If
one wants to go that far, op-amps would be far better. Take TLE2074. With
10MHz bandwidth and 45V/us slew rate it can work as IF amplifier to increase
sensitivity, tone control, buffer, AGC integrator, etc.

And after that why do you need to retain a lousy tube amp? Why not to use an
IC? All the radio can be powered from a 6.3V winding with a bipolar voltage
doubler (four caps, four 1N4004 diodes)

....................
I like to use paralleled 12AX7 as V1 and EL34 in triode as V2 for the
audio amp and with 12dB global NFB.
This works far better than anything with 6V6 or EL84 etc.

Alex:
Works better in which respect? EL34 takes as many amps for its heater as the
whole original radio circuit. What about the poor lousy power transformer?




  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

snip for brevity.

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/


You grasped the idea perfectly well John. This frequency compensation is
useful to prevent a lousy OPT and 6AQ5 overloading in a lousy boring audio
amp found in those boring AA5 style radios.


I agree with everything Alex says below except for a few things.

In most old radios with DC flow across the volume control pot track
the adjustment of the volume is often very noisy after the pot has
aged a few years.

So instead of the conventional arrangements put forward by RDH and
most others to avoid parts costs I will have the last IFT coil biased
at say +50V at one end, and the live end goes to a triode grid of 1/2
12AU7 CF buffer to remove any loading effect of diode detection on the
last IFT LC.


What is the purpose and or advantage of using a cathode follower between the IFT
and detector diode, especially if you are going to add 100k resistors to widen
the IF response as you discuss below?

Then I use Ge diode feeding RC circuit, and this can
directly feed second 1/2 12AU7 CF buffer and then usual CR coupling to
any a volume control and while employing time passive poles to give
say -3dB at 30Hz before any power amp which has NFB. I often add in
another 12AU7 gain stage for tone control to boost/cut treble; bass in
AM is usually OK.

To slightly widen AF response the Q of all IFTs may be reduced by
strapping 100k across each coil. It doesn't work in all sets, but may
be tried.


The coupling between the two coils in an IFT often needs to be increased
somewhat when adding resistors, that may explain why it doesn't work in all
sets, if the IFTs are over coupled adding resistors may ne counter productive.

Related to this is the fact that the instruction manual for Heathkit's first AM
tuner kit recommended placing a resistor(s) across the first IFT if a narrower
bandwidth was needed, so things don't always work as expected. The reason the
resistor(s) narrowed the bandwidth in the Heathkit is because it was a wideband
tuner with an over coupled 1st IFT, so adding the resistor(s) takes the
transformers close to critical coupling, giving a narrower response. I don't
remember if the Heathkit mod for reducing the bandwidth involved adding
resistors on both the primary and secondary, or on only one winding, I will have
to see if I can find the manual, IIRC they also used a resistor or resistors
during alignment to eliminate the over coupling, allowing the tuner to be
aligned by peaking the IFTs.

There is a simple method explained in RDH4 to add a few
turns of fine wire around the primary of IFT1 and switch it to being
in series with the sec of IFT1 which will give a doble peak to IFT
response which effectively increases IF channel bandwidth from a
typical 4kHz to 8 kHz. Quad used it.


QUAD's first superheterodyne AM tuner, the Acoustical AM tuner, used a different
scheme to vary the bandwidth. Rather than using an IFT they used two separate
IF coils with low side capacitive coupling, the low side capacitive coupling
could be switched to vary the bandwidth.

I've used it - finally there is the the treble which most sets refuse
to give me.

I like to use paralleled 12AX7 as V1 and EL34 in triode as V2 for the
audio amp and with 12dB global NFB.
This works far better than anything with 6V6 or EL84 etc.

The Ge diode in the detector is biased on with a low current in the R.
Its works best with high level signals and up to 100% mod, with 10Vrms
available if you want it.

But anyone could use the normal arrangement of IFT plus tube
rectifiers found in IF amp tubes like 6N8 and thus get say -2Vdc
generated by a carrier with 2pk volts of signal. at 100% mod the Vpk-
pk of audio = 4V, so max audio = 1.4V, no?

The audio signal with negative vdc and some 455kHz ripple could be
direct coupled to a CF triode buffer stage but you'd need a -150Vdc
rail for the cathode resistor, while the anode would go to a +100V
supply. The CF buffer and negative rail was viewed as a waste of money
in 1950, so it was never done. But there's no reason why it can't be
done NOW. And the screen voltage applied to mixer and IF amp is best
regulated at 100Vdc, so that's a good point of supply with CF anodes .

I don't much like tubes like the 6AV6 with grounded cathodes and 10M
grid leak biasing.

The very low F signals generated in AM sets don't seem to cause any
problems in anything I have made.


--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

On Jun 30, 8:03*pm, "Alex Pogossov" wrote:
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message

...
........................
In most old radios with DC flow across the volume control pot track
the adjustment of the volume is often very noisy after the pot has
aged a few years.

So instead of the conventional arrangements put forward by RDH and
most others to avoid parts costs I will have the last IFT coil biased
at say +50V at one end, and the live end goes to a triode grid of 1/2
12AU7 CF buffer to remove any loading effect of diode detection on the
last IFT LC. Then I use Ge diode feeding RC circuit, and this can
directly feed second 1/2 12AU7 CF buffer and then usual CR coupling to
any a volume control and while employing time passive poles to give
say -3dB at 30Hz before any power amp which has NFB. I often add in
another 12AU7 gain stage for tone control to boost/cut treble; bass in
AM is usually OK.

Alex:
Is adding two extra tubes a reasonable "mod"? It is the radio redesign.


I raise my hat to all the designers of tube AM radios. They worked
under duress and had no liberty to produce the best radio which could
be built because the companies all had to compete with each other for
sales so they all agreed to make the lowest common denominator
radios.

But DIYers were always free to do whatever they damned well liked, and
some did, but there's very little record of the
0.000000000000000000001% of radios made by ppl MORE intelligent that
99.99% of staff employed by companies.

If you consider the bulk and inefficiency of using pre WW2 octals and
most tubes, then why would making a radio with a couple of extra tubes
be a hanging offense? 1950's 7pin and 9pin tubes are far smaller and
compact than th octals they replaced, so you could use more tubes.
When FM radio and TV came into being the number of tubes became a
minor concern - you needed plenty of tubes, sure, and a shirt&trouser
load of other "stuff". Prices for such goods wasn't based on the cost
of production + a margin for profit because the industry had learnt
far higher margins over cost were needed to fund the phasing in of
Solid State and a huge increase om manufacturing infrastructure.

one wants to go that far, op-amps would be far better. Take TLE2074. With
10MHz bandwidth and 45V/us slew rate it can work as IF amplifier to increase
sensitivity, tone control, buffer, AGC integrator, etc.


Sure. Then you have a solid state radio. **** that. Gimme a coupla
triodes.


And after that why do you need to retain a lousy tube amp? Why not to use an
IC? All the radio can be powered from a 6.3V winding with a bipolar voltage
doubler (four caps, four 1N4004 diodes)


I build tube radios, OK.

...................
I like to use paralleled 12AX7 as V1 and EL34 in triode as V2 for the
audio amp and with 12dB global NFB.
This works far better than anything with 6V6 or EL84 etc.

Alex:
Works better in which respect? EL34 takes as many amps for its heater as the
whole original radio circuit. What about the poor lousy power transformer?


I replace PT, maybe add another if I have to. Anything goes, but what
goes out my door gives excellent AM and SW if there are coils, plus I
put in a couple of RCA sockets to take CD player L&R or an FM tuner
L&R so you get mono sound and real Hi-Fi. The trioded EL34 makes
better sound than anu single EL84/6V6. 807 and 6L6 in triode are also
excellent, and need less heater power.

I have a pile of PTs from which I can use for old radios where the PT
has become very fragile and poor insulation after running hot for 70
years.

So when someone getds me to fix a big beautiful floor standing radio,
they get the glory of the nice woodwork and they are not compelled to
listen all day to maybe 1 or 2 stations which sometimes broadcast
something worth listening to. They need to be able to play CDs and and
listen to AM and then they discover the glories of SET amps and wide
AF bandwidth. Most people don't need the sound to be loud, they don't
need stereo, and what they want is GOOD sound, and that's what I give
them. And in 3 years time they don't have to find a tube type
originating from pre-WW2 Europe, they will find spares quite easily
for the next 20 years at least.

Some radio ideas never became popular. The 1947 Tucker Synchrodyne was
such a thing. Synchronous detection really had to wait until the solid
state era where you could become more precise with circuits which all
too often were a nightmare for anyone to get running easily with
tubes.

Patrick Turner.



  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

On Jul 1, 1:58*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*Patrick Turner wrote:





snip for brevity.


John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/


You grasped the idea perfectly well John. This frequency compensation is
useful to prevent a lousy OPT and 6AQ5 overloading in a lousy boring audio
amp found in those boring AA5 style radios.


I agree with everything Alex says below except for a few things.


In most old radios with DC flow across the volume control pot track
the adjustment of the volume is often very noisy after the pot has
aged a few years.


So instead of the conventional arrangements put forward by RDH and
most others to avoid parts costs I will have the last IFT coil biased
at say +50V at one end, and the live end goes to a triode grid of 1/2
12AU7 CF buffer to remove any loading effect of diode detection on the
last IFT LC.


What is the purpose and or advantage of using a cathode follower between the IFT
and detector diode, especially if you are going to add 100k resistors to widen
the IF response as you discuss below?


The last IFT coil is a high impedance tuned circuit signal source. If
one is going to load it slightly to slightly reduce the Q thus
widening the pass band and AF response then using a pure resistance is
benign. The CF converts the high Z source to low Z source and all the
crapological behaviour of the Ge diode dissappears.
One could still use a 6AL5 if one wanted to.

Then I use Ge diode feeding RC circuit, and this can
directly feed second 1/2 12AU7 CF buffer and then usual CR coupling to
any a volume control and while employing time passive poles to give
say -3dB at 30Hz before any power amp which has NFB. I often add in
another 12AU7 gain stage for tone control to boost/cut treble; bass in
AM is usually OK.


To slightly widen AF response the Q of all IFTs may be reduced by
strapping 100k across each coil. It doesn't work in all sets, but may
be tried.


The coupling between the two coils in an IFT often needs to be increased
somewhat when adding resistors, that may explain why it doesn't work in all
sets, if the IFTs are over coupled adding resistors may ne counter productive.


Try things. Predjudice don't belong anywhere when you want to make old
junk meet modern expectations.
In my kichen set I have a knob on front which changes IF gain. This is
done by varying the distance between the two coils on IFT1 so they can
be slightly over coupled after the set is tuned with coils apart.
Magically, the AF bandwidth nearly doubles. Its because the slight
over coupling creates a double IF peak in response which complememts
the single peak of the IFT2, and you get a wider pass band but skirt
selectivity is still very good. I recall Halicrafters had a
communications set with all 3 IFTs having mechanically variable
selectivity. This was a boon to radio hams.

Related to this is the fact that the instruction manual for Heathkit's first AM
tuner kit recommended placing a resistor(s) across the first IFT if a narrower
bandwidth was needed, so things don't always work as expected. *


I've always found R across IFT tanks reduced Q and increased BW, and
tended to make circuits less likely to oscillate.

The reason the
resistor(s) narrowed the bandwidth in the Heathkit is because it was a wideband
tuner with an over coupled 1st IFT, so adding the resistor(s) takes the
transformers close to critical coupling, giving a narrower response. *


Most ordinary radios have lots of selectivity but 2kHz of AF BW - if
you are lucky.

I don't
remember if the Heathkit mod for reducing the bandwidth involved adding
resistors on both the primary and secondary, or on only one winding, I will have
to see if I can find the manual, IIRC they also used a resistor or resistors
during alignment to eliminate the over coupling, allowing the tuner to be
aligned by peaking the IFTs.

There is a simple method explained in RDH4 to add a few
turns of fine wire around the primary of IFT1 and switch it to being
in series with the sec of IFT1 which will give a doble peak to IFT
response which effectively increases IF channel bandwidth from a
typical 4kHz to 8 kHz. Quad used it.


QUAD's first superheterodyne AM tuner, the Acoustical AM tuner, used a different
scheme to vary the bandwidth. *Rather than using an IFT they used two separate
IF coils with low side capacitive coupling, the low side capacitive coupling
could be switched to vary the bandwidth.


There are a number of things doable to widen IF BW, but doing them is
always easier said than done.

Patrick Turner.
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Alex Pogossov Alex Pogossov is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers


"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
news:02ac8343-a10e-48e9-

I raise my hat to all the designers of tube AM radios. They worked
under duress and had no liberty to produce the best radio which could
be built because the companies all had to compete with each other for
sales so they all agreed to make the lowest common denominator
radios.

But DIYers were always free to do whatever they damned well liked, and
some did, but there's very little record of the
0.000000000000000000001% of radios made by ppl MORE intelligent that
99.99% of staff employed by companies.

If you consider the bulk and inefficiency of using pre WW2 octals and
most tubes, then why would making a radio with a couple of extra tubes
be a hanging offense? 1950's 7pin and 9pin tubes are far smaller and
compact than th octals they replaced, so you could use more tubes.
When FM radio and TV came into being the number of tubes became a
minor concern - you needed plenty of tubes, sure, and a shirt&trouser
load of other "stuff". Prices for such goods wasn't based on the cost
of production + a margin for profit because the industry had learnt
far higher margins over cost were needed to fund the phasing in of
Solid State and a huge increase om manufacturing infrastructure.

one wants to go that far, op-amps would be far better. Take TLE2074. With
10MHz bandwidth and 45V/us slew rate it can work as IF amplifier to
increase
sensitivity, tone control, buffer, AGC integrator, etc.


Sure. Then you have a solid state radio. **** that. Gimme a coupla
triodes.


And after that why do you need to retain a lousy tube amp? Why not to use
an
IC? All the radio can be powered from a 6.3V winding with a bipolar
voltage
doubler (four caps, four 1N4004 diodes)


I build tube radios, OK.

...................
I like to use paralleled 12AX7 as V1 and EL34 in triode as V2 for the
audio amp and with 12dB global NFB.
This works far better than anything with 6V6 or EL84 etc.

Alex:
Works better in which respect? EL34 takes as many amps for its heater as
the
whole original radio circuit. What about the poor lousy power transformer?


I replace PT, maybe add another if I have to. Anything goes, but what
goes out my door gives excellent AM and SW if there are coils, plus I
put in a couple of RCA sockets to take CD player L&R or an FM tuner
L&R so you get mono sound and real Hi-Fi. The trioded EL34 makes
better sound than anu single EL84/6V6. 807 and 6L6 in triode are also
excellent, and need less heater power.

I have a pile of PTs from which I can use for old radios where the PT
has become very fragile and poor insulation after running hot for 70
years.

So when someone getds me to fix a big beautiful floor standing radio,
they get the glory of the nice woodwork and they are not compelled to
listen all day to maybe 1 or 2 stations which sometimes broadcast
something worth listening to. They need to be able to play CDs and and
listen to AM and then they discover the glories of SET amps and wide
AF bandwidth. Most people don't need the sound to be loud, they don't
need stereo, and what they want is GOOD sound, and that's what I give
them. And in 3 years time they don't have to find a tube type
originating from pre-WW2 Europe, they will find spares quite easily
for the next 20 years at least.

Some radio ideas never became popular. The 1947 Tucker Synchrodyne was
such a thing. Synchronous detection really had to wait until the solid
state era where you could become more precise with circuits which all
too often were a nightmare for anyone to get running easily with
tubes.

Patrick Turner.
====================
Alex replies:
I see your approach to radio design. You are prepared to improve a boring
typical aussie radio by adding a cathode follower, another audio stage for
tone control, replace PT, drill/punch a couple of holes for the extra 2
tubes, etc.

What I can not understand is the craziness. Why go through all this bother
if a better improvement can be done with transistors and op-amps, and the
stuff can be hidden on a small board under the chassis. Unfortunately there
is no area where tubes outperform solid state, except for (literaly) warm
feeling.

Sometimes I do redesign as well. For example, the best AM detector is the
emitter detector. It virtually combines your cathode follower (emitter
follower in this case) with a diode detector (emitter junction). It has
rather high input impedance: beta times higher than of a bare diode
detector. And beta is quite high for the modern transistors. One problem
though. Reverse breakdown voltage of an emitter junction is about 8V, so the
carrier shall not exceed 1Vm (with a margin). Thus the radio needs to have a
perfect AGC.

An AGC in a boring radio is bad. On a week station AM detector gives 0.5V,
while on a strong local station can reach 5...10V. What I do, I put an
integrator in the AGC circuit so that no matter how strong is a station, the
carrier level is about 1V, while the AGC can be anywhere from 0V to --30V.
The radio becomes very convenient. Set volume and cruse the dial. All the
stations will have the same volume. The radio does not blast when running on
a strong local station.

Now I ask you: how would you make an integrator on a tube? Possible, but
cumbersome. Why lika communist, create difficulties and then overcome them
with a loud chest-pounding and shouting slogans?

Well, normally I do not do deep redesign, but just improve whatever possible
keeping the same topology. That is where the idea of low cut off in the
feedback came from. Once you begin to apply NFB to a lousy boring amp (to
reduce the speaker boom and make crispier sond), you want not to extend the
low frequencies below what the lousy OPT can handle naturally. And you can
not use RC high-pass filters on the input because the input impedance must
be 10M or more (not to load the detector). And you can not use a Hi-Z RC
filter of say 470pF and 10M, as hum and noise caused by flickering grid
current would be enormous.



  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

====================
Alex replies:
I see your approach to radio design. You are prepared to improve a boring
typical aussie radio by adding a cathode follower, another audio stage for
tone control, replace PT, drill/punch a couple of holes for the extra 2
tubes, etc.

What I can not understand is the craziness. Why go through all this bother
if a better improvement can be done with transistors and op-amps, and the
stuff can be hidden on a small board under the chassis.


I've got a lotta tubes and bits and peices. Most SS AM radios are
quite poor performers. I enjoy working with tubes.

it seems fraudelent to get someone to pay to have their radio restored
by fitting a little board full of chippy crappy thinges.

One has to draw a line some place.

Unfortunately there
is no area where tubes outperform solid state, except for (literaly) warm
feeling.


Try telling that to ppl who prefer tube gear. It just is not true for
them.

I have a Marantz AM-FM chip based tuner sitting on top of my AM radio.
I can switch to FM if I want to, and the FM is not better sounding
than my tube AM set.
When I switch the tuner to its AM section its much inferior to the
tubes, so I use the tubes for AM and audio, and the chip tuner only
for the FM signal.
Something like a Leak Troughline FM tuner is excellent, also Quad FM
tuners. But the tubed stereo decoders often increased noise and
distortion so they were not always good. The add-on MPX made for Leak
and Quad with Ge transistors were awful. OK, so a chip based MPX Does
Work OK. I once instaled a kit made in the UK into an old Kenwood AM-
FM receiver with mono FM - worked very well, and there wasn't a tubed
MPX in there already.

Sometimes I do redesign as well. For example, the best AM detector is the
emitter detector. It virtually combines your cathode follower (emitter
follower in this case) with a diode detector (emitter junction). It has
rather high input impedance: beta times higher than of a bare diode
detector. And beta is quite high for the modern transistors. One problem
though. Reverse breakdown voltage of an emitter junction is about 8V, so the
carrier shall not exceed 1Vm (with a margin). Thus the radio needs to have a
perfect AGC.


Recently I used a couple of small bjts in darlington pair EF mode to
buffer the signal after Ge diode and RC - worked very well to avoid
cut off distortion because of AC loading. But I prefer 1/2 a 12AU7.

An AGC in a boring radio is bad. On a week station AM detector gives 0.5V,
while on a strong local station can reach 5...10V. What I do, I put an
integrator in the AGC circuit so that no matter how strong is a station, the
carrier level is about 1V, while the AGC can be anywhere from 0V to --30V.


Yes, but today I finally got a re-built 1935 radio working fairly well
with 6AN7 triode-hexode mixer and 6N8 IF remote cut off IF amp. To
avoid the terrible hum when tuned to AM stations ( due to compact
fluorescent lamps) I replace the existing RF input coil designed for
antenna = 3 metres of wire. The lamps tend to modulate the
electrostatic content of the electromagnetivc wave at the rectifier F,
100Hz plus horrid harmonics. The replacement is a ferrite rod antenna
which reacts to the magnetic portion of the wave which seems to have
far less hum. But the voltage level is smaller at the input. But with
only 2 tubes for the AM tuner, 4 out of 7 local AM stations produce
between -5 and -8 Vdc of AGC voltage, and audio level does not change
much for the stations even though I have no DC amp to assist the AGC
function.

On my own AM radio I have IF amp = 6BX6 which is sharp cut off and I
have local current FB to linearise the IF amp. AGC is applied to an RF
input stage and mixer only, sure the AF levels vary more but it sounds
better.

I've done a few sets which have had all octal tubes, 6U7 RF, 6A8
mixer, 6U7 IF amp, and because you have THREE stages and Gm is only
moderate, they work very well indeed, and give better SW than the two
stages with just mixer and IF amp. I've never felt a need for
amplified AVC voltage.

The radio becomes very convenient. Set volume and cruse the dial. All the
stations will have the same volume. The radio does not blast when running on
a strong local station.


Nor does mine, and I am not alergic to changing volume for the mood,
to turn up music and intelligent discussions, and to trun down the
crap, adds and lying politicians. Moderate AGC is fine for me.

Now I ask you: how would you make an integrator on a tube? Possible, but
cumbersome. Why lika communist, create difficulties and then overcome them
with a loud chest-pounding and shouting slogans?


What's an integrator? Last time I looked, it was something than
changed a square wave into a saw tooth wave, ie, RC circuit. Unlike
the Chest Pounding Communists, I am no slave to any unruly mob called
'Socialists For Electronic Correctness'. I'll do things my way, or a
better way if I am convinced its yet another intelligent use of a tube
or two, or three.

Well, normally I do not do deep redesign, but just improve whatever possible
keeping the same topology.


I find it impossible to retain existing circuits when I know that I
know better. It is a private thing with me. There are gory details.
But usually the music survives better than otherwise.

That is where the idea of low cut off in the
feedback came from. Once you begin to apply NFB to a lousy boring amp (to
reduce the speaker boom and make crispier sond), you want not to extend the
low frequencies below what the lousy OPT can handle naturally.


But what if the amp is NOT "lousy boring amp" and what if there is NO
speaker boom,
and no need of the extra NFB at VLF?

Feel free to add the cap if you want but I have yet to explore the
idea and make careful measurements to verify to myself the idea is
worth persuit. So far nobody seems to have devoted a website page with
all the details of performance which is too difficult to explain here
in words only.

And you can
not use RC high-pass filters on the input because the input impedance must
be 10M or more (not to load the detector). And you can not use a Hi-Z RC
filter of say 470pF and 10M, as hum and noise caused by flickering grid
current would be enormous.


Sure. I get around all the problems you tell me about by abolishing
the use of grid leak biasing, and using something different. Today I
spent yet another 8 hours on a 1935 radio in which all old tubes were
removed and replaced with 1950s tubes. There had been a mix of 3
oddball European tubes wth Queer Sockets plus a couple of octals made
in Oz; someone had already modified the set, and done it quite badly,
and what was there in 1935 isn't clear, but basically just mixer, IF
amp with diodes, AF input, AF output and type 80 rectifier, and a
Magic Eye. 6 tubes. Now it has 7, with Si diodes to replace 80. I have
yet to re-wire the magic eye. The power lost in the 80 is now used in
the EL34. I found that instead of triode on this set I could have a CT
on the OPT primary for 50% SE UL mode and 12dB GNFB works fine. B+ is
+375V at the same Ia as used for a 6F6 which had been used. The EL34
in SE UL or SE triode gives far nicer sound than 6F6, 42, 6V6, EL84,
and other crap in pentode/tetrode mode with very little GNFB. The only
down side is that when Rout is high with pentode mode the small amount
of treble produced in old radios is "naturally boosted" by the rising
signal at the speaker at higher F because the speaker impedance rises
with F. Some makers were clever to marry the output tubes to just the
right speaker to give a boosted treble. If GNFB is used the treble
dissappears. So then one must use a tweeter. But most old sets without
GNFB become tiring to me and where there should be clear HF there are
competing high levels of "artificial HF", ie, the high levels of THD
and IMD - Its OK if all you need to know is the latest news bulletin,
but not so hot for music.

The set I'm working on will have 2 RCA sockets to combine L&R inputs
from an FM tuner or CD player, ipod, or other i-crap.

Patrick Turner.



  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jul 1, 1:58*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article
,
*Patrick Turner wrote:

I agree with everything Alex says below except for a few things.


In most old radios with DC flow across the volume control pot track
the adjustment of the volume is often very noisy after the pot has
aged a few years.


So instead of the conventional arrangements put forward by RDH and
most others to avoid parts costs I will have the last IFT coil biased
at say +50V at one end, and the live end goes to a triode grid of 1/2
12AU7 CF buffer to remove any loading effect of diode detection on the
last IFT LC.


What is the purpose and or advantage of using a cathode follower between
the IFT
and detector diode, especially if you are going to add 100k resistors to
widen
the IF response as you discuss below?


The last IFT coil is a high impedance tuned circuit signal source. If
one is going to load it slightly to slightly reduce the Q thus
widening the pass band and AF response then using a pure resistance is
benign. The CF converts the high Z source to low Z source and all the
crapological behaviour of the Ge diode dissappears.
One could still use a 6AL5 if one wanted to.


You haven't really answered the question, just spouted a bunch of meaningless
gibberish. My question was what is the advantage of using a cathode follower
between the secondary of the IFT and the detector diode? The cathode follower
is going to reduce the loading on the IFT, which is going in exactly the
opposite direction you seem to want to go when you recommend loading the IFTs
with 100k resistors! What do you gain by adding the cathode follower to the
circuit? What is wrong with simply choosing the diode load to reflect the
desired load to the secondary of the IFT, 100k or whatever? Also the coupling
coefficient between the primary and secondary of each IFT should be properly
coordinated with the selected loading on the IFTs to achieve the desired
bandwidth with maximum response flatness. A cathode follower after the diode
can be useful as one way to eliminate negative peak clipping due to a poor AC/DC
load ratio. What is this "carpological" behavior of the Ge diode that you are
talking about? Can you define the nature of this behavior?

Then I use Ge diode feeding RC circuit, and this can
directly feed second 1/2 12AU7 CF buffer and then usual CR coupling to
any a volume control and while employing time passive poles to give
say -3dB at 30Hz before any power amp which has NFB. I often add in
another 12AU7 gain stage for tone control to boost/cut treble; bass in
AM is usually OK.


To slightly widen AF response the Q of all IFTs may be reduced by
strapping 100k across each coil. It doesn't work in all sets, but may
be tried.


The coupling between the two coils in an IFT often needs to be increased
somewhat when adding resistors, that may explain why it doesn't work in all
sets, if the IFTs are over coupled adding resistors may ne counter
productive.


Try things. Predjudice don't belong anywhere when you want to make old
junk meet modern expectations.


What and whose prejudice are you talking about here? Are you talking about
people who have a "prejudice" against "improving" old radios? I have no such
prejudice. I do wonder about the design basis and effectiveness of
modifications, whether the modifications are being done in the best and most
effective manner.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

On Jul 6, 10:07*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*Patrick Turner wrote:





On Jul 1, 1:58*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article
,
*Patrick Turner wrote:


I agree with everything Alex says below except for a few things.


In most old radios with DC flow across the volume control pot track
the adjustment of the volume is often very noisy after the pot has
aged a few years.


So instead of the conventional arrangements put forward by RDH and
most others to avoid parts costs I will have the last IFT coil biased
at say +50V at one end, and the live end goes to a triode grid of 1/2
12AU7 CF buffer to remove any loading effect of diode detection on the
last IFT LC.


What is the purpose and or advantage of using a cathode follower between
the IFT
and detector diode, especially if you are going to add 100k resistors to
widen
the IF response as you discuss below?


The last IFT coil is a high impedance tuned circuit signal source. If
one is going to load it slightly to slightly reduce the Q thus
widening the pass band and AF response then using a pure resistance is
benign. The CF converts the high Z source to low Z source and all the
crapological behaviour of the Ge diode dissappears.
One could still use a 6AL5 if one wanted to.


You haven't really answered the question, just spouted a bunch of meaningless
gibberish. *My question was what is the advantage of using a cathode follower
between the secondary of the IFT and the detector diode? *


I didn't speak meaningless giberish. But, I do understand that
whatever I do say, and whatever I have posted at my website as
examples of my craftmanship will always be misunderstood, belitlled,
rubbished, dismissed, and ****ed upon shat upon from a great height. I
don't care because whoever is downloading the regular 100MB a day from
my site might not believe in you gibberish theory, and when they try
some of my circuits they find the sound is dramatically better than
has been served up by an industry mainly concerned with the cost-of-
production rather than audio fidelity.

As many of the readers here are approaching nearer to their 90th
birthday closer than I am, of course its likely they might find my
answers to questions and discussions of 101 things related to audio or
the world to be gibberish well before I conceed to myself that I don't
understand my position any better, because of increasing possible
senility. When blokes here say they were apprentices in some
electronics company in 1952, but of course try to hide their age, I
have to allow for the inevitable fact that a percentage of them have
gone soft up top, and I'd be utterly bamboozling, no matter how simply
I explained anything.

I suggest you read RDH4 and visit my website more.

I just re-wired a horrible Howard radio set made in about 1935. The
last IFT secondary is biased at +50V, and it feeds a 1/2 12AU7 CF,
with Ge diode, with 680k + 250pF cap to 0V, then 200k plus 100pF LPF
then direct coupled to another 1/2 12AU7 CF which poweres the 500k
volume control. The sound is HEAD and SHOULDERS above any other crappy
radio.

I suggest you try my methods to learn why I use the methods, for
therin lies the answers to all you testy questions.

The cathode follower
is going to reduce the loading on the IFT, which is going in exactly the
opposite direction you seem to want to go when you recommend loading the IFTs
with 100k resistors!


Resistance loads the IFTs with resistance, and the effect retains
pentode linearity. I don't always use R damping to reduce Q, but its
handy when the set has been changed to work with all mains operated 7
pin tubes in lieu of the 1.4V filament types which are fragile, have
low gm, and gain, and are becoming hard to obtain, and which ppl don't
want to use any more with batteries. The IFTs in such sets usually
have very high Q, and very low and thus poor sounding AF BW so R
damping is fine. With sets that have an RF stage ahead of the mixer so
hence have a total of 6 tuned circuits, side band cutting sometimes
limits AF to 2kHz, ie, bloody awful, OK if you are listening to long
distance talk back, but useless for music. So with so many stages the
IF Q may be reduced quite a bit and there is still plenty of gain for
the set overall for what is most listened to, ie, strong local AM
stations. Some reduction of Q is best if spread over all 4 coils in 2
IFTs. One must remember that the each LC circuit has only 6dB/octave
attenuation away from the Fo. Let's say each IFT LC has Q = 45. The
pass band = +/-5kHz, or 10kHz. Maybe you get -15dB at +/- 20kHz so
that with 4 such tuned circuits the pass band is 5kHz or less, and at
+/- 20kHz the attenuation = -60dB, considered OK, because strong
locals are usually separated by 45kHz at least. The nose shape of well
done IFTs won't be as sharp as just one one coil because the mutual
coupling is supposed to be arranged to flatten the top of the pass
band somewhat to give wide BW. Anyway, the nose shape won't much
affect the skirt attenuation at more than +/- 20kHz away from Fo. One
has to take all these considerations into account before adding R
dampers.

*What do you gain by adding the cathode follower to the
circuit? *What is wrong with simply choosing the diode load to reflect the
desired load to the secondary of the IFT, 100k or whatever? *


Better sound. Try it sometime. Then you'll know.


Also the coupling
coefficient between the primary and secondary of each IFT should be properly
coordinated with the selected loading on the IFTs to achieve the desired
bandwidth with maximum response flatness. *A cathode follower after the diode
can be useful as one way to eliminate negative peak clipping due to a poor AC/DC
load ratio. *What is this "carpological" behavior of the Ge diode that you are
talking about? *Can you define the nature of this behavior?


Ge diodes have reverse lekage currents. Try using one in a typical
radio circuit and get back to me. Be very careful when observing the
whole depressing performance using a high impedance non loading type
of probe to your CRO.

Then I use Ge diode feeding RC circuit, and this can
directly feed second 1/2 12AU7 CF buffer and then usual CR coupling to
any a volume control and while employing time passive poles to give
say -3dB at 30Hz before any power amp which has NFB. I often add in
another 12AU7 gain stage for tone control to boost/cut treble; bass in
AM is usually OK.


To slightly widen AF response the Q of all IFTs may be reduced by
strapping 100k across each coil. It doesn't work in all sets, but may
be tried.


The coupling between the two coils in an IFT often needs to be increased
somewhat when adding resistors, that may explain why it doesn't work in all
sets, if the IFTs are over coupled adding resistors may ne counter
productive.


Try things. Predjudice don't belong anywhere when you want to make old
junk meet modern expectations.


What and whose prejudice are you talking about here? *Are you talking about
people who have a "prejudice" against "improving" old radios? *I have no such
prejudice. *I do wonder about the design basis and effectiveness of
modifications, whether the modifications are being done in the best and most
effective manner.


Its far simpler for me to to humbly suggest you try my methods rather
than expect a full explanation. If I give an explanation its read,
perhaps called gibberish, and forgotten. The reader does not solder
the idea into reality. Nothing is learnt. I have wasted my precious
time. I've put all my answers at my website in the form of schematics.
I've explained all this at rec.audio.tubes several times in the last
11 years and I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

There are far better ways to build an AM radio than by slavishly,
blindly and unquestioningly following RDH4. Its a great book, but many
of the best practices with tubes are omitted because manufacturers
could not afford to implement them.

Patrick Turner.
  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jul 6, 10:07*am, John Byrns wrote:

*What do you gain by adding the cathode follower to the
circuit? *What is wrong with simply choosing the diode load to reflect the
desired load to the secondary of the IFT, 100k or whatever? *


Better sound. Try it sometime. Then you'll know.


OK, I'm sensing a challenge here, similar to Danger Dave's assertions that
resulted in the ³Power Amplifier Without Power Transformer². The problem is
that with respect to Danger Dave's assertions, SNR was an easy to measure
parameter. Unfortunately your claims for the benefits of using a cathode
follower to buffer the IFT from the detector diode, is ³Better sound², a sort of
vague standard.

Before I take up my soldering iron to demonstrate that an AM detector the equal
of yours can be built without the cathode follower between the IFT and detector
diode, I will need to know how to measure ³Better sound². Can you suggest some
valid objective measurements I can use to measure ³Better sound²?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #59   Report Post  
John L Stewart John L Stewart is offline
Senior Member
 
Location: Toronto
Posts: 301
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Byrns View Post
In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jul 6, 10:07*am, John Byrns wrote:

*What do you gain by adding the cathode follower to the
circuit? *What is wrong with simply choosing the diode load to reflect the
desired load to the secondary of the IFT, 100k or whatever? *


Better sound. Try it sometime. Then you'll know.


OK, I'm sensing a challenge here, similar to Danger Dave's assertions that
resulted in the ³Power Amplifier Without Power Transformer². The problem is
that with respect to Danger Dave's assertions, SNR was an easy to measure
parameter. Unfortunately your claims for the benefits of using a cathode
follower to buffer the IFT from the detector diode, is ³Better sound², a sort of
vague standard.

Before I take up my soldering iron to demonstrate that an AM detector the equal
of yours can be built without the cathode follower between the IFT and detector
diode, I will need to know how to measure ³Better sound². Can you suggest some
valid objective measurements I can use to measure ³Better sound²?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
Now John, there are dreamers & there are doers. Which are you?

Pls pick up that soldering iron & show us what you can do.

Cheers to all, John L Stewart who still remembers which end is the handle!
Attached Images
 
  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

On Jul 8, 8:51*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jul 6, 10:07*am, John Byrns wrote:


*What do you gain by adding the cathode follower to the
circuit? *What is wrong with simply choosing the diode load to reflect the
desired load to the secondary of the IFT, 100k or whatever? *


Better sound. Try it sometime. Then you'll know.


OK, I'm sensing a challenge here, similar to Danger Dave's assertions that
resulted in the ³Power Amplifier Without Power Transformer². *The problem is
that with respect to Danger Dave's assertions, SNR was an easy to measure
parameter. *Unfortunately your claims for the benefits of using a cathode
follower to buffer the IFT from the detector diode, is ³Better sound², a sort of
vague standard.

Before I take up my soldering iron to demonstrate that an AM detector the equal
of yours can be built without the cathode follower between the IFT and detector
diode, I will need to know how to measure ³Better sound². *Can you suggest some
valid objective measurements I can use to measure ³Better sound²?


I suggest you renovate your distortion measuring capabilities, and
then compare an average AM adio performance to something designed on
the principles I recommend which bean counters in 1950 were likely to
say were "uanaffordable". No excuses for your allergy to warm your
soldering iron could ever be respected.
You resemble the lad at school who turns up with no completed
homework, and pleads to teacher, "Please sir, the dog ate my exercise
book" or other ficticious sorts of excuses.

I recall having no excuse for incomplete homework. I wore teacher's
wrath. I was deemed lazy. Pity, they said, while saying I was a
walking waste of intelligence. But ya shoulda seen the Meccano models
and boat models I made and train sets and the radio sets and
transmitters. I was busy, and i'd only learn something if I needed
too, then I learnt real good, and real quick.

So I wasa **** of a kid, ****in independant. But very busy; Bored
****less with stuff the teachers and parents wanted me to learn, like
Latin, French, Geology, English, Economics, and I deliberately sang
out of tune to avoid being in the Skool Choir. So when others wasted
time singing hyms and crap I got a precious hour to catch up on math
or physics. It is upon math and physics that the World turns round! I
hated swimming, and on the main comp day I just didn't turn up. I was
a traitor. I was a hopeless football player and had no athletic
ability. I'm mighty proud I didn't catow to all these folks wanting me
to do stuff I just had **** all interest in. I didn't bother to be
keen at the one and only social dance held by our school where they
bussed in girls from a local non-catholic grammer school. All those
****s didn't ****, wouldn't ****, and would charge such enormous
prices for a **** if you married one that I could see they were not
worth dancing with. It was useless trying to explain to Christian
Brothers. They'd never had a ****. I hadn't either, but I knew what
it'd be like, and what the costs would be, and so why try to relate to
posh un****able girls prematurely? Those same girls have become old
chooks I'd not wanna know. Later I prooved I was right about
everything and that education had limited benefits. I got a job as a
carpenter's apprentice and spent many years Building A Better
Australia With My Own Bare Hands, and I went to night college for 6
years to get a Building Certificate. I found a use for education - to
facilitate a noble cause far more worthy than the existance teachers
had in mind for me. But being a bloke who worked outside and got mud
on his boots was a mighty horrid thing in the eyes of grammar school
girls or any girls, even catholic ones. I moved outa home and gave up
all the pretense of upper middle class status my parents thought they
had, and then I met the Working Class who I have loved ever since,
despite all their many little failings. In summer I swim about 5km a
week and I ride a bike 200km a week, and I am officially very fit for
my age. Most blokes of my age, 64, are 3/4 ****ed in their minds and
bodies.

That's my explanation or excuse for not knowing everything, what's
yours?

Patrick Turner.


Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/




  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Lord Valve Lord Valve is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 296
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

RAT's confused leftwing ****tard muttered:

I got a precious hour to catch up on math
or physics. It is upon math and physics that the World turns round!


I'm sure you didn't let little things like mistakes of four orders of magnitude slow
your headlong progress in the field.


Lord Valve
American - and **** you if you don't like it.

  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jul 8, 8:51*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article
,
*Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jul 6, 10:07*am, John Byrns wrote:


*What do you gain by adding the cathode follower to the
circuit? *What is wrong with simply choosing the diode load to reflect
the
desired load to the secondary of the IFT, 100k or whatever? *


Better sound. Try it sometime. Then you'll know.


OK, I'm sensing a challenge here, similar to Danger Dave's assertions that
resulted in the ³Power Amplifier Without Power Transformer². *The problem
is
that with respect to Danger Dave's assertions, SNR was an easy to measure
parameter. *Unfortunately your claims for the benefits of using a cathode
follower to buffer the IFT from the detector diode, is ³Better sound², a
sort of
vague standard.

Before I take up my soldering iron to demonstrate that an AM detector the
equal
of yours can be built without the cathode follower between the IFT and
detector
diode, I will need to know how to measure ³Better sound². *Can you suggest
some
valid objective measurements I can use to measure ³Better sound²?


I suggest you renovate your distortion measuring capabilities,


OK, you seem to be saying that it isn't "Better sound" that counts, that it is
measured "distortion" that counts?

I have next to zero interest in "renovating" my distortion measuring
capabilities, how good do my distortion measuring capabilities have to be to
adequately measure the performance of your AM detector?

What is the measured distortion performance of your AM detector circuit as shown
at the following URL?

http://www.turneraudio.com.au/am-fm-...iles/schem-tun
er-am-tuner-dec-05.gif

At what IF signal level, into the detector, did you measure its performance?
This is important since I do not intend to try and duplicate your entire tuner,
just the detector.

and then compare an average AM adio performance


Why do I care about the performance of "an average AM adio", why do you even
mention it?

to something designed on the principles I recommend which bean
counters in 1950 were likely to say were "uanaffordable".


All I am interested in comparing is "something designed on the principles you
recommend" vs. something designed on the principals I have recommended.

http://www.turneraudio.com.au/am-fm-...ex-decoder.htm

On your web page above, that describes your AM tuner design, you say about the
detector, "The grid of the IFT2 sec is biased at +31V to give some idle current
in the cathode R9, and to trickle a small current in the 1N914 diode via
R16&R17, so that the non-linear turn on character of the diode is avoided, since
it is always slightly turned on by the idle dc flow." Can you explain how this
bias avoids the "turn on character" of the diode, given that to function as a
detector the diode must turn off?! Bias, if correctly applied, will help reduce
the slew rate limiting at high modulating frequencies.

An interesting web page describing a number of AM detectors used in broadcast
modulation monitors and ham radio receivers can be found here.

http://www.tonnesoftware.com/appnote...iodedemod.html

[Much off topic drivel snipped]

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Alex Pogossov Alex Pogossov is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers


"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

An interesting web page describing a number of AM detectors used in
broadcast
modulation monitors and ham radio receivers can be found here.

http://www.tonnesoftware.com/appnote...iodedemod.html


Thanks John,

This is a very interesting article indeed.


  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

On Jul 9, 9:19*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*Patrick Turner wrote:





On Jul 8, 8:51*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article
,
*Patrick Turner wrote:


On Jul 6, 10:07*am, John Byrns wrote:


*What do you gain by adding the cathode follower to the
circuit? *What is wrong with simply choosing the diode load to reflect
the
desired load to the secondary of the IFT, 100k or whatever? *


Better sound. Try it sometime. Then you'll know.


OK, I'm sensing a challenge here, similar to Danger Dave's assertions that
resulted in the ³Power Amplifier Without Power Transformer². *The problem
is
that with respect to Danger Dave's assertions, SNR was an easy to measure
parameter. *Unfortunately your claims for the benefits of using a cathode
follower to buffer the IFT from the detector diode, is ³Better sound², a
sort of
vague standard.


Before I take up my soldering iron to demonstrate that an AM detector the
equal
of yours can be built without the cathode follower between the IFT and
detector
diode, I will need to know how to measure ³Better sound². *Can you suggest
some
valid objective measurements I can use to measure ³Better sound²?


I suggest you renovate your distortion measuring capabilities,


OK, you seem to be saying that it isn't "Better sound" that counts, that it is
measured "distortion" that counts?

I have next to zero interest in "renovating" my distortion measuring
capabilities, how good do my distortion measuring capabilities have to be to
adequately measure the performance of your AM detector?

What is the measured distortion performance of your AM detector circuit as shown
at the following URL?

http://www.turneraudio.com.au/am-fm-...ex-decoder_fil...
er-am-tuner-dec-05.gif

At what IF signal level, into the detector, did you measure its performance? *
This is important since I do not intend to try and duplicate your entire tuner,
just the detector.

and then compare an average AM adio performance


Why do I care about the performance of "an average AM adio", why do you even
mention it?

to something designed on the principles I recommend which bean
counters in 1950 were likely to say were "uanaffordable".


All I am interested in comparing is "something designed on the principles you
recommend" vs. something designed on the principals I have recommended.

http://www.turneraudio.com.au/am-fm-...ex-decoder.htm

On your web page above, that describes your AM tuner design, you say about the
detector, "The grid of the IFT2 sec is biased at +31V to give some idle current
in the cathode R9, and to trickle a small current in the 1N914 diode via
R16&R17, so that the non-linear turn on character of the diode is avoided, since
it is always slightly turned on by the idle dc flow." *Can you explain how this
bias avoids the "turn on character" of the diode, given that to function as a
detector the diode must turn off?! *Bias, if correctly applied, will help reduce
the slew rate limiting at high modulating frequencies.

An interesting web page describing a number of AM detectors used in broadcast
modulation monitors and ham radio receivers can be found here.

http://www.tonnesoftware.com/appnote...iodedemod.html

[Much off topic drivel snipped]


You may well delete "drivel" like so many others here who have awful
personalities who cannot cope with being human or nice in any way. Ah
you going senile? Just can't cope with well rounded discussions? Its
OK, you don't have to hide such characteristics.

I've read the tonnesoftware.com site before and there's nothing there
that works better than my circuits using tubes, and I got less wave
form distortion that they show on their oscillograms.

I suggest you try my circuit rather than waste time trying to find
excuses not to use your soldering iron.

I don't really mind if you are rivetted to your lounge room chair in
front of your PC, but when I ever about an idea which might be good I
rush out and try it out to see if I can replicate claims by the
inventor.

If you can't manage to build my detector circuit which uses 1 x 12AU7
tube with a few R&C then maybe you've lost your touch.

And I have extensively discussed all this stuff before with you here
at r.a.t and I refuse to do it all over again.

Patrick Turner.

  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jul 9, 9:19*am, John Byrns wrote:

[Much off topic drivel snipped]


You may well delete "drivel" like so many others here who have awful
personalities who cannot cope with being human or nice in any way. Ah
you going senile? Just can't cope with well rounded discussions? Its
OK, you don't have to hide such characteristics.


Your drivel is a fine topic for discussion, the problem is that it is off topic
in this group and you should take it elsewhere.

I've read the tonnesoftware.com site before and there's nothing there
that works better than my circuits using tubes, and I got less wave
form distortion that they show on their oscillograms.


The detectors used in the modulation monitors, the General Radio 1931, Gates
M5693, and Belar AMM-2/3 don't appear to have any visible waveform distortion,
although your eye is probably more sensitive to this type of aberration than
mine. In my defense, back in the days before I became senile, when I worked in
the radio design factory, where we were designing "white goods" radios and
measuring power output at the 5% distortion level, I was consistently able to
set the signal level where 5% distortion occurred without reading the meter on
the distortion analyzer, looking only at the waveform displayed on the CRO.

I have two main problems with the tonnesoft web page. The first is that he uses
an ideal diode model for some of his simulations, and doesn't say what model he
used in others, although I haven't looked at the web page in two years, and if I
read it again might find that he does specify the diode models he used.

The second problem, which is very relevant to our disagreement over the use of a
cathode follower to buffer the diode from the IFT, is that he assumes that the
demodulators are driven by a zero impedance, effectively all his circuits
include your cathode follower, which confuses the issue.

I suggest you try my circuit rather than waste time trying to find
excuses not to use your soldering iron.


I probably shouldn't even be thinking about this cathode follower issue, let
alone thinking about soldering together your detector circuit. I should be
saving my solder for building an improved 25L6 amplifier, however I am curious
about the effect of your apparently pointless cathode follower, and it is
possible that I will be overcome by a desire to show it to be worthless. You
seem to possess a reverse "bean counter" element to your personality which
drives you to include circuit elements that serve no real function, thereby
needlessly driving costs up and reliability down.

I don't really mind if you are rivetted to your lounge room chair in
front of your PC, but when I ever about an idea which might be good I
rush out and try it out to see if I can replicate claims by the
inventor.


OK, what exactly is your claim for inserting a cathode follower between the
secondary of the IFT and the detector diode? On your web page you make two
claims.

Claim #1 is that "this CF isolate the loading effects of the diode detector from
the secondary of the 6BA6", however you don't say why this isolation might be
desirable? The only reason I can see is to increase the Q of the secondary of
the 6BA6, however increasing the Q doesn't seem to be your goal as you also talk
about adding 100k damping resistors to reduce the Q. You could save the cost of
the cathode follower and the loading resistor by simply using neither.

Claim #2 is that the cathode follower "provides a low impedance output to drive
the 1N914 silicon diode detector." Again you give no hint why this might be
useful, although it does seems to have some potential usefulness, on the other
hand a higher impedance output also has some advantages in detector
design/operation.

If you can't manage to build my detector circuit which uses 1 x 12AU7
tube with a few R&C then maybe you've lost your touch.


Looking at the schematic of your detector it appears to use only 1/2 x 12AU7 for
the cathode follower between the secondary of the IFT and the diode, your design
doesn't really use a cathode follower after the diode, instead depending on a
voltage divider, 330k/100k, in conjunction with a relatively high AC coupled
load of 890k, to minimize negative peak clipping. You do use cathode followers
as the audio stage, but they are not connected in a way that they have any
influence on negative peak clipping.

Your design has given me one idea that I have missed up until now. My design
uses a cathode follower directly coupled to the diode detector to eliminate
negative peak clipping. The down side of this approach for those of us who have
been influenced by bean counters is that it requires a negative supply for the
cathode of the cathode follower, impacting both cost and reliability to some
extent. On the plus side one advantage of this approach is that the AGC voltage
can be easily obtained from a tap a little way down the cathode resistor of the
cathode follower.

The idea you have given me is to float the secondary of the IFT and the diode at
a positive potential allowing the direct coupled cathode follower to operate
without a negative supply. The complication is that a separate AGC rectifier is
required, which has the potential to negatively affect the sound, especially
when a delay circuit is used.

And I have extensively discussed all this stuff before with you here
at r.a.t and I refuse to do it all over again.


Discussed it yes, unfortunately you have never offered an explanation of the
usefulness of the cathode follower between the IFT and the detector diode,
beyond the subjective claim that it provides the "best sound". Near as I can
tell the only purpose this cathode follower serves is to assuage your prejudices
against "bean counters".

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/


  #66   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

On Jul 10, 3:48*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jul 9, 9:19*am, John Byrns wrote:


[Much off topic drivel snipped]


You may well delete "drivel" like so many others here who have awful
personalities who cannot cope with being human or nice in any way. Ah
you going senile? Just can't cope with well rounded discussions? Its
OK, you don't have to hide such characteristics.


Your drivel is a fine topic for discussion, the problem is that it is off topic
in this group and you should take it elsewhere.


I see no reason not to include some background information which
indirectly relates to the subject.

Otherwise the group's discussion can be very boring, especially since
all this has probably been discussed before.

I've read the tonnesoftware.com site before and there's nothing there
that works better than my circuits using tubes, and I got less wave
form distortion that they show on their oscillograms.


The detectors used in the modulation monitors, the General Radio 1931, Gates
M5693, and Belar AMM-2/3 don't appear to have any visible waveform distortion,
although your eye is probably more sensitive to this type of aberration than
mine. *In my defense, back in the days before I became senile, when I worked in
the radio design factory, where we were designing "white goods" radios and
measuring power output at the 5% distortion level, I was consistently able to
set the signal level where 5% distortion occurred without reading the meter on
the distortion analyzer, looking only at the waveform displayed on the CRO.


Don't worry, when, or if I become senile, i'll not recognise 5% ona
CRO when its there. But most waves at that site showed slew
distortions and cut off distortions and so forth, all of which can
easily be avoided or minimised to be below 1% with my circuit over a
wide AF range and if the output voltage 1 Vrms. But even where one
listens to short wave where AF detector output 0.1Vrms, the sound is
good, although rather mauled by having travelled so far and being so
riddles with noise and fading up and down. I have never ever seen any
old radio or any old schematic of what was used for detecting AF for
use in re-broadcasting. AFAIK, not one single commercial example
exists of a radio with "infinite impedance detector" even though the
Selsted & Smith example is given in RDH4, page 1,495, Figs 27.56,
27.57
RDH4 does not have anything that works as well as what I invented for
myself 14 years ago. Maybe someone else invented it elsewhere, but
almost anything is better than the normal bean counter driven way of
AM detection in old radios.

I have two main problems with the tonnesoft web page. *The first is that he uses
an ideal diode model for some of his simulations, and doesn't say what model he
used in others, although I haven't looked at the web page in two years, and if I
read it again might find that he does specify the diode models he used.


I don't care about his modelling or what diodes he used; I just build
my REAL stuff and test it. If it measures well, and better than all
the websites I've seen online, they have wasted their time.

The second problem, which is very relevant to our disagreement over the use of a
cathode follower to buffer the diode from the IFT, is that he assumes that the
demodulators are driven by a zero impedance, effectively all his circuits
include your cathode follower, which confuses the issue.


There is no need to load the secondary of the IFT and one may indeed
connect it to an "infinite impedance" and it will still act like a
tuned transformer as intended. But one may load the IFT. No laws
against that. But loading can't be low, and so I have found its better
to convert the IF signal to low impedance with the CF and then the
diode is not so critical. Point contact GE types with high reverse
voltage ratings are probably best to use, forward voltage drop of only
0.2V.


I suggest you try my circuit rather than waste time trying to find
excuses not to use your soldering iron.


I probably shouldn't even be thinking about this cathode follower issue, let
alone thinking about soldering together your detector circuit. *I should be
saving my solder for building an improved 25L6 amplifier, however I am curious
about the effect of your apparently pointless cathode follower, and it is
possible that I will be overcome by a desire to show it to be worthless. *You
seem to possess a reverse "bean counter" element to your personality which
drives you to include circuit elements that serve no real function, thereby
needlessly driving costs up and reliability down.


Most bean counters justify their employment by being able to reduce
the parts and labour needed to make something, and therefore
increasing shareholder profits and most often reducing the sound
quality and reliability in electronics produced by the company.

I do indeed have an anti bean counter attitude, and most of them
should be frog-marched in public through the town square to where they
should be given a pick and shovel to dig their own grave. Where is Pol
Pot when you need the man? But I am not so extreme in practice, and
the radios and amps I build are amoung the best sound and most
reliable on the planet.

You can set out on a wanton voyage of defiance of good sense if you
like, but meanwhile I have clients I like to please and who pay me to
put in the stuff that the companies left out all those years ago.

I don't really mind if you are rivetted to your lounge room chair in
front of your PC, but when I ever about an idea which might be good I
rush out and try it out to see if I can replicate claims by the
inventor.


OK, what exactly is your claim for inserting a cathode follower between the
secondary of the IFT and the detector diode? *On your web page you make two
claims.

Claim #1 is that "this CF isolate the loading effects of the diode detector from
the secondary of the 6BA6", however you don't say why this isolation might be
desirable? *The only reason I can see is to increase the Q of the secondary of
the 6BA6, however increasing the Q doesn't seem to be your goal as you also talk
about adding 100k damping resistors to reduce the Q. *You could save the cost of
the cathode follower and the loading resistor by simply using neither.


OK, RDH4 talks about the ill-effects of diode + R&C detection loading
and although the book was written to promote tube use it didn't go far
enough as I have in this area. Loading should be resistive only, and
then you buffer to the following processes.

Claim #2 is that the cathode follower "provides a low impedance output to drive
the 1N914 silicon diode detector." *Again you give no hint why this might be
useful, although it does seems to have some potential usefulness, on the other
hand a higher impedance output also has some advantages in detector
design/operation.


Si diodes for signal detection at highish F should be driven by low Z
sources lest you get all manner of distortions you don't want. Just
build and measure, and you'll be pleased. If you just won't try such a
tiny little idea with just a tiny handful of parts to do something
that is so simple because its veracity cannot be proved in advance in
words here at this group, then you do indeed possess a moribund mind
and one possessing a high amount of sloth.

If you can't manage to build my detector circuit which uses 1 x 12AU7
tube with a few R&C then maybe you've lost your touch.


Looking at the schematic of your detector it appears to use only 1/2 x 12AU7 for
the cathode follower between the secondary of the IFT and the diode, your design
doesn't really use a cathode follower after the diode, instead depending on a
voltage divider, 330k/100k, in conjunction with a relatively high AC coupled
load of 890k, to minimize negative peak clipping. *You do use cathode followers
as the audio stage, but they are not connected in a way that they have any
influence on negative peak clipping.

Your design has given me one idea that I have missed up until now. *My design
uses a cathode follower directly coupled to the diode detector to eliminate
negative peak clipping. *The down side of this approach for those of us who have
been influenced by bean counters is that it requires a negative supply for the
cathode of the cathode follower, impacting both cost and reliability to some
extent. *On the plus side one advantage of this approach is that the AGC voltage
can be easily obtained from a tap a little way down the cathode resistor of the
cathode follower.

The idea you have given me is to float the secondary of the IFT and the diode at
a positive potential allowing the direct coupled cathode follower to operate
without a negative supply. *The complication is that a separate AGC rectifier is
required, which has the potential to negatively affect the sound, especially
when a delay circuit is used.



The generation of AGC voltage may be done easily and off the CF output
with a cap and diode with its cathode grounded, with the generated -
Vdc drained off with 1.5M to bias points. It can also be done from the
anode of the IF amp and thus from the primary of IFT. C used is
usually 33pF, and loading effect is negligible.
The anode IF signal is higher than secondary do more AGC is available
and usually there is less sibilance during tuning when the anode is
used for AGC dervivation.
The rules about invention are anything but strict; just do what works
better than you read about in text books or that you see being used in
commercial junk designed bt accountants.


And I have extensively discussed all this stuff before with you here
at r.a.t and I refuse to do it all over again.


Discussed it yes, unfortunately you have never offered an explanation of the
usefulness of the cathode follower between the IFT and the detector diode,
beyond the subjective claim that it provides the "best sound". *Near as I can
tell the only purpose this cathode follower serves is to assuage your prejudices
against "bean counters".


I give a damn if all I've said misses the point asfayac. Those capable
of invention and who insist that AM radios and audio amps should sound
better and measure better than much of the dumbed down junk that's
sold in shops will understand my website and the attitudes I have.

Patrick Turner.



--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/


  #67   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jul 10, 3:48*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article
,
*Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jul 9, 9:19*am, John Byrns wrote:


[Much off topic drivel snipped]


You may well delete "drivel" like so many others here who have awful
personalities who cannot cope with being human or nice in any way. Ah
you going senile? Just can't cope with well rounded discussions? Its
OK, you don't have to hide such characteristics.


Your drivel is a fine topic for discussion, the problem is that it is off
topic
in this group and you should take it elsewhere.


I see no reason not to include some background information which
indirectly relates to the subject.


I don't see how your so called "background" information relates even
"indirectly" to the subject, it just plain doesn't belong in this group.

I've read the tonnesoftware.com site before and there's nothing there
that works better than my circuits using tubes, and I got less wave
form distortion that they show on their oscillograms.


The detectors used in the modulation monitors, the General Radio 1931,
Gates
M5693, and Belar AMM-2/3 don't appear to have any visible waveform
distortion,
although your eye is probably more sensitive to this type of aberration
than
mine. *In my defense, back in the days before I became senile, when I
worked in
the radio design factory, where we were designing "white goods" radios and
measuring power output at the 5% distortion level, I was consistently able
to
set the signal level where 5% distortion occurred without reading the meter
on
the distortion analyzer, looking only at the waveform displayed on the CRO.


Don't worry, when, or if I become senile, i'll not recognise 5% ona
CRO when its there. But most waves at that site showed slew
distortions and cut off distortions and so forth, all of which can
easily be avoided or minimised to be below 1% with my circuit over a
wide AF range and if the output voltage 1 Vrms.


Yes, there are plenty of distortions shown to illustrate the various problems
that can occur in a poorly designed detector, and what causes the distortions.
There are also plenty of undistorted waves shown at that site, with distortions
of less than 1%, to illustrate the good results that can be achieved with
careful design.

But even where one
listens to short wave where AF detector output 0.1Vrms, the sound is
good, although rather mauled by having travelled so far and being so
riddles with noise and fading up and down. I have never ever seen any
old radio or any old schematic of what was used for detecting AF for
use in re-broadcasting.


I found a schematic for an old Telefunken AM rebroadcast receiver, a.k.a.
"Ballempfänger", on the web. It was a rather complex radio although IIRC it
used a straightforward vacuum diode detector.

AFAIK, not one single commercial example
exists of a radio with "infinite impedance detector" even though the
Selsted & Smith example is given in RDH4, page 1,495, Figs 27.56,
27.57
RDH4 does not have anything that works as well as what I invented for
myself 14 years ago.


In the US J.W. Miller offered both commercial AM tuners and Radios using the
infinite impedance detector, I have one of their AM Tuners. Altec Lansing also
offered an AM-FM tuner that used the infinite impedance detector in the AM
section. Sargent Rayment also offered a line of tuners and receivers that used
the Selsted & Smith detector in the AM sections. Ampex also built an AM-FM
tuner that used a perverted variant of the Selsted & Smith detector, I also have
one of these.

It's hard to beat a carefully designed diode detector though.

Most bean counters justify their employment by being able to reduce
the parts and labour needed to make something, and therefore
increasing shareholder profits and most often reducing the sound
quality and reliability in electronics produced by the company.


The opposite approach, of adding components that serve no useful function is
just as bad, actually worse.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #68   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

On Jul 10, 1:09*pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*Patrick Turner wrote:





On Jul 10, 3:48*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article
,
*Patrick Turner wrote:


On Jul 9, 9:19*am, John Byrns wrote:


[Much off topic drivel snipped]


You may well delete "drivel" like so many others here who have awful
personalities who cannot cope with being human or nice in any way. Ah
you going senile? Just can't cope with well rounded discussions? Its
OK, you don't have to hide such characteristics.


Your drivel is a fine topic for discussion, the problem is that it is off
topic
in this group and you should take it elsewhere.


I see no reason not to include some background information which
indirectly relates to the subject.


I don't see how your so called "background" information relates even
"indirectly" to the subject, it just plain doesn't belong in this group.


Well then we'll just have to agee to disagree. But I like to talk
about Sex, Politics, Religion, and Economics at dinner parties. I find
small talk tedious and boring if not spiced up with some off topics. I
thus get called a "raving left wing Grade A arsole" and so forth on
regular basis for daring to challenge the validity of the limited
perceptions of others which seem to be set in concrete. To un-set the
concrete, and allow flows of ideas I can come across as smooth as
grade 6 sand paper and I don't give a ****. For flows of ideas,
readers of this rec.audio.tubes site should be active with a soldering
iron and Get Off Fat Arses And Do A Lot Of Something, ie,
GOFAADALOS !!!! :-) :-) And it'd help if they were FREE in how
they come to the site to talk about anything at all.

Someone said to me yesterday, "I'm black or white. I only ever see
black or white" She's the wife of a tech I employ, and can be rather a
stern old lady. "Ah", I said, "ever thought that there might be other
colours, like red, or green? Maybe blue, yellow?" She goes, "Nah,
black or white." Maybe that's why her husband don't talk to her much -
she's intimidating. But I mentioned, "Surely there'd be some green in
how ya see the world, no, because surely there'd be a bitta the Irish
in ya". She still wouldn't smile. Like a lemon. No sense of humour.

What ****s me are old people who don't ask any sensible questions and
seek only to disprove others while NEVER constructing something new
and better within the field of their interests, and definately never
trying out anything different to see if it works.

If you now think I have been off topic, no apologies, because its not
wrong to be opinionated.

Don't worry, when, or if I become senile, i'll not recognise 5% ona
CRO when its there. But most waves at that site showed slew
distortions and cut off distortions and so forth, all of which can
easily be avoided or minimised to be below 1% with my circuit over a
wide AF range and if the output voltage 1 Vrms.


Yes, there are plenty of distortions shown to illustrate the various problems
that can occur in a poorly designed detector, and what causes the distortions. *
There are also plenty of undistorted waves shown at that site, with distortions
of less than 1%, to illustrate the good results that can be achieved with
careful design.


Because my home brew test signal of modulated RF waves isn't perfect,
the distortion within the envelope is probably 1%, and hence if I
measured the THD of the AF after its been through the AM radio i would
get THD of detected AF 1%, certainly at say 95% modulation.

So to see how much THD is introduced by the radio set one may use a
dual trace CRO to display both test
signal at the radio input and the detected AF and overlay the waves to
see how they compare. Using as much of the screen as possible, its not
difficult to see if there is less than 1% of additional THD added by
the radio set. All that takes time but its a very simple thing and I
cannot understand why you would not have tried out all sorts of AM
detector ideas like I have to see what works best for you. What the
**** impedes your progress to your workshop and soldering iron? If you
have a broken leg, or are impaired or disabled in some way, then let's
hear about it.

But even where one
listens to short wave where AF detector output 0.1Vrms, the sound is
good, although rather mauled by having travelled so far and being so
riddles with noise and fading up and down. I have never ever seen any
old radio or any old schematic of what was used for detecting AF for
use in re-broadcasting.


I found a schematic for an old Telefunken AM rebroadcast receiver, a.k.a.
"Ballempfänger", on the web. *It was a rather complex radio although IIRC it
used a straightforward vacuum diode detector.


Nothing wrong with vacuum diode detectors if used wisely. They might
be used instead of how I have used Ge diodes with CF. They all work
best with low Z signal sources.

I googled Telefunken AM rebroadcast receiver "Ballempfänger"
Nothing to be seen.



AFAIK, not one single commercial example
exists of a radio with "infinite impedance detector" even though the
Selsted & Smith example is given in RDH4, page 1,495, Figs 27.56,
27.57
RDH4 does not have anything that works as well as what I invented for
myself 14 years ago.


In the US J.W. Miller offered both commercial AM tuners and Radios using the
infinite impedance detector, I have one of their AM Tuners. *Altec Lansing also
offered an AM-FM tuner that used the infinite impedance detector in the AM
section. *Sargent Rayment also offered a line of tuners and receivers that used
the Selsted & Smith detector in the AM sections. *Ampex also built an AM-FM
tuner that used a perverted variant of the Selsted & Smith detector, I also have
one of these.


I've never seen any of these things in Oz or any of their schematics.

Infinite Z detector isn't bad, but gives very low output.

It's hard to beat a carefully designed diode detector though.


Depends. Most are distortion generators.

Most bean counters justify their employment by being able to reduce
the parts and labour needed to make something, and therefore
increasing shareholder profits and most often reducing the sound
quality and reliability in electronics produced by the company.


The opposite approach, of adding components that serve no useful function is
just as bad, actually worse.


Each unto their own. everyone has a different way of doing things, and
commercial competition stifles anyone who dares to use one more nut,
bolt or resistor than the ****ing opposition brand. The result is that
they all have competitions to seewho can dumb **** down the most while
maintaining enough sales for the shareholders to dine well.

If it makes you ill to use one more cathode follower than someone
somewhere said could be superflous, then don't. But I will. In my
vicinity there are no shareholders or bean counters, and my clients
get a good deal without having to pay for someone's Cadillac or
expensive lunches, neither of which contribute to sound quality.

Patrick Turner.


Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, *http://fmamradios.com/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jul 10, 1:09*pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article
,
*Patrick Turner wrote:

Don't worry, when, or if I become senile, i'll not recognise 5% ona
CRO when its there. But most waves at that site showed slew
distortions and cut off distortions and so forth, all of which can
easily be avoided or minimised to be below 1% with my circuit over a
wide AF range and if the output voltage 1 Vrms.


Yes, there are plenty of distortions shown to illustrate the various
problems
that can occur in a poorly designed detector, and what causes the
distortions. *
There are also plenty of undistorted waves shown at that site, with
distortions
of less than 1%, to illustrate the good results that can be achieved with
careful design.


Because my home brew test signal of modulated RF waves isn't perfect,
the distortion within the envelope is probably 1%, and hence if I
measured the THD of the AF after its been through the AM radio i would
get THD of detected AF 1%, certainly at say 95% modulation.

So to see how much THD is introduced by the radio set one may use a
dual trace CRO to display both test
signal at the radio input and the detected AF and overlay the waves to
see how they compare. Using as much of the screen as possible, its not
difficult to see if there is less than 1% of additional THD added by
the radio set. All that takes time but its a very simple thing


Unfortunately it is also somewhat subjective.

and I
cannot understand why you would not have tried out all sorts of AM
detector ideas like I have to see what works best for you.


I already know that a well-designed diode detector works best for me; at least
since I regressed to tubes, in my IC days I would have answered differently.

You say that you ³have tried out all sorts of AM detector ideas², besides your
spin on the diode detector, and your ill fated attempts at building a syncrodyne
receiver, what have you tried?

What the
**** impedes your progress to your workshop and soldering iron?


Two things, first the fact that AM detectors are of academic interest only, as
there has been no AM broadcasting around this area, that needs anything better
than the crudest AM detector, for at least 15 years or so. Second, I think I am
more interested in putting my soldering iron to work on the John Stewart
inspired ³improved 25L6² amplifier. There are three binary design decisions to
be made before I purchase a chassis and begin punching it.

If you
have a broken leg, or are impaired or disabled in some way, then let's
hear about it.


Ah, you think you can drag me into an off topic discussion, it won't work, if
you want to explore that kind of discussion, please take it to email.

But even where one
listens to short wave where AF detector output 0.1Vrms, the sound is
good, although rather mauled by having travelled so far and being so
riddles with noise and fading up and down. I have never ever seen any
old radio or any old schematic of what was used for detecting AF for
use in re-broadcasting.


I found a schematic for an old Telefunken AM rebroadcast receiver, a.k.a.
"Ballempfänger", on the web. *It was a rather complex radio although IIRC
it
used a straightforward vacuum diode detector.


Nothing wrong with vacuum diode detectors if used wisely. They might
be used instead of how I have used Ge diodes with CF. They all work
best with low Z signal sources.

I googled Telefunken AM rebroadcast receiver "Ballempfänger"
Nothing to be seen.


You weren't persistent enough, for a general description go he

http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/telefun...faenger_b.html

If you aren't a member, I'm not, you won't be able to see the schematic. The
schematic is available from several other web sites though, you can find it in
two parts he

http://www.tsf-radio.org/schph.php?f...anger-E1-1.gif

and he

http://www.tsf-radio.org/schph.php?f...anger-E1-2.gif

While the design looks like the ³bean counters² were kept at a safe distance,
there still isn't a cathode follower in sight!

AFAIK, not one single commercial example
exists of a radio with "infinite impedance detector" even though the
Selsted & Smith example is given in RDH4, page 1,495, Figs 27.56,
27.57
RDH4 does not have anything that works as well as what I invented for
myself 14 years ago.


In the US J.W. Miller offered both commercial AM tuners and Radios using
the
infinite impedance detector, I have one of their AM Tuners. *Altec Lansing
also
offered an AM-FM tuner that used the infinite impedance detector in the AM
section. *Sargent Rayment also offered a line of tuners and receivers that
used
the Selsted & Smith detector in the AM sections. *Ampex also built an AM-FM
tuner that used a perverted variant of the Selsted & Smith detector, I also
have
one of these.


I've never seen any of these things in Oz or any of their schematics.

Infinite Z detector isn't bad, but gives very low output.


That's an interesting comment as the output level depends on the input just as
with a diode detector. My experiments with the circuit suggest that it does
exploit the characteristics of the low mu triodes to improve operation at low
carrier levels.

It's hard to beat a carefully designed diode detector though.


Depends. Most are distortion generators.


Those are not ³carefully² designed, it is easy to screw up a diode detector, it
is equally easy to build a good one but it costs a little gain. This and the
output transformer are the areas where the work of ³bean counters² can be most
easily seen.

Most bean counters justify their employment by being able to reduce
the parts and labour needed to make something, and therefore
increasing shareholder profits and most often reducing the sound
quality and reliability in electronics produced by the company.


The opposite approach, of adding components that serve no useful function
is
just as bad, actually worse.


Each unto their own. everyone has a different way of doing things, and
commercial competition stifles anyone who dares to use one more nut,
bolt or resistor than the ****ing opposition brand. The result is that
they all have competitions to seewho can dumb **** down the most while
maintaining enough sales for the shareholders to dine well.


Hardly, commercial products today are overflowing with every imaginable feature,
each of which adds to the parts count. Competition today seems to be based more
on features, with cost as a secondary issue, why make something more expensive
than it needs to be to provide the required features and performance?

If it makes you ill to use one more cathode follower than someone
somewhere said could be superflous, then don't. But I will. In my
vicinity there are no shareholders or bean counters, and my clients
get a good deal without having to pay for someone's Cadillac or
expensive lunches, neither of which contribute to sound quality.


An unneeded cathode follower doesn't contribute to sound quality either. I
won't bother to ask who pays for your lunches and transportation, least it take
us off topic again, but I am reasonably sure they are accounted for in the price
of the amplifiers you build.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #70   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

So to see how much THD is introduced by the radio set one may use a
dual trace CRO to display both test
signal at the radio input and the detected AF and overlay the waves to
see how they compare. Using as much of the screen as possible, its not
difficult to see if there is less than 1% of additional THD added by
the radio set. All that takes time but its a very simple thing


Unfortunately it is also somewhat subjective.

and I
cannot understand why you would not have tried out all sorts of AM
detector ideas like I have to see what works best for you.


I already know that a well-designed diode detector works best for me; at least
since I regressed to tubes, in my IC days I would have answered differently.


With ICs you get a dc coupled amp and its possible to use an output
diode pointed at an RC circuit with the audio voltage and Vdc fed back
to the FB input port of the IC, and thus get what is supposed to make
the most linear detector imaginable because there is MUCH more NFB
being applied than when using a cathode follower like I do. The IC
input impedance at IF frequency needs to be high though. I have
circuits for doing all that but the CF I use is just fine.

You say that you ³have tried out all sorts of AM detector ideas², besides your
spin on the diode detector, and your ill fated attempts at building a syncrodyne
receiver, what have you tried?


I've tried a lot of variations on normal arrangements with IF coil
feeding an anode in a vari-mu pentode IF amp and following RC circuit.
The CF seems best to me.

I tried to build a version of the DG Tucker Synchrodyne circuit
published in Wireless World in about 1947. Maybe its now online some
place, and what prevented progess was the making of a suitable
balanced synchronous demodulator. Probably the best way is to use a
toroidal transformer with the core µ just right for range of RF
frequencies. But I never had time to explore how to make such a
tranny. The tucker circuit uses lots more tubes than a superhet and
needs much more practical expertise to get running without loud
whistles while tuning. It was a potentially excellent thing but it was
never to become popular because the superhet was king. Then tried
making a synchrodyne based on a self oscillating 6BE6, and there are
some simple circuits of those around, just RF input tube and 6BE6
needed only. That sort of worked a bit but monkey chatter and whistles
and controlling oscillations just right were easier said than done so
I abandoned the idea and proceeded with a good superhet. AGC is
applied to RF vari-mu cascode triode input amp and 6AN7mixer, then
6BX6 sharp cut off IF amp without AGC and using some unbypassed Rk for
local current FB. AF bandwidth is 10kHz, with minimum distance between
IF coils, but even with max distance AF BW is about 6kHz. Tone control
boosts and cuts F above 2kHz. 12AU7 CF detector used, and after
comparing the sound of my kitchen AM radio to countless others I have
repaired, my own design is very much better to listen to. I have a
Marantz AM/FM tuned hooked up to allow switching to FM in mono, and
when the same ABC news program is being broadcast at the same time on
local ABC AM stations and FM stations the AM radio I have sounds
clearer than the FM produced by the SS tuner. There is a subtle
difference, and a pleasant one. The AM from the Marantz is ****ing
awful.

I try not to give AM radio much attention in my life because I have
1,001 projects to complete for customers and several amp projects fr
myself in progress. But I get "trapped by AM radios" which ppl want
fixed. The majority are collectors items with outrageously poor
performance if they are restored to original condition, and because
ppl use compact flourescent lamps and 101 other things which create
noise, a ferrite rod antenna must be used and the MW RF input coild
junked. Then inputs for tuner and CD must be put in with a switch to
people are not stuck having to listen to the appalling programme
material such as talk back and commercial garbage laced with adds. The
speakers and amps need rebuilding to meet modern expectations. Thre
are some who might junk all the tubes and put in a board full of SS
parts but then that betrays tubes, and I don't do that trick.

What the
**** impedes your progress to your workshop and soldering iron?


Two things, first the fact that AM detectors are of academic interest only, as
there has been no AM broadcasting around this area, that needs anything better
than the crudest AM detector, for at least 15 years or so. *Second, I think I am
more interested in putting my soldering iron to work on the John Stewart
inspired ³improved 25L6² amplifier. *There are three binary design decisions to
be made before I purchase a chassis and begin punching it.


So it seems unlikely you'll ever listen to the benefits of my ideas.

Binary decisions eh. In a bind are you?

If you
have a broken leg, or are impaired or disabled in some way, then let's
hear about it.


Ah, you think you can drag me into an off topic discussion, it won't work, if
you want to explore that kind of discussion, please take it to email.


I guess you think some things are best kept out of the public gaze.
Its remarkable how many people are secretive about themselves, I'm one
who isn't. I have very little to feel ashamed of or embarrassed
about.


I googled * Telefunken AM rebroadcast receiver "Ballempfänger"
Nothing to be seen.


You weren't persistent enough, for a general description go he

http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/telefun...faenger_b.html

If you aren't a member, I'm not, you won't be able to see the schematic. *The
schematic is available from several other web sites though, you can find it in
two parts he

http://www.tsf-radio.org/schph.php?f...Ball-Empfanger....

and he

http://www.tsf-radio.org/schph.php?f...Ball-Empfanger....

While the design looks like the ³bean counters² were kept at a safe distance,
there still isn't a cathode follower in sight!


Those links open but the pictures won't open to reveal what you are
talking about.

I doubt I am missing anything.




AFAIK, not one single commercial example
exists of a radio with "infinite impedance detector" even though the
Selsted & Smith example is given in RDH4, page 1,495, Figs 27.56,
27.57
RDH4 does not have anything that works as well as what I invented for
myself 14 years ago.


In the US J.W. Miller offered both commercial AM tuners and Radios using
the
infinite impedance detector, I have one of their AM Tuners. *Altec Lansing
also
offered an AM-FM tuner that used the infinite impedance detector in the AM
section. *Sargent Rayment also offered a line of tuners and receivers that
used
the Selsted & Smith detector in the AM sections. *Ampex also built an AM-FM
tuner that used a perverted variant of the Selsted & Smith detector, I also
have
one of these.


I've never seen any of these things in Oz or any of their schematics.


Infinite Z detector isn't bad, but gives very low output.


That's an interesting comment as the output level depends on the input just as
with a diode detector. *My experiments with the circuit suggest that it does
exploit the characteristics of the low mu triodes to improve operation at low
carrier levels.


The infinite Z detector should work very well if a CF is used to
buffer the IFT output to produce a low Z drive which might then be
applied to a diode and then to resistance to then be able to extract
the average voltage across the resistance, and without the diode
having to charge a cap. Kinda like a half wave rectifier in a PSU
where the aim is to have the AF signal linear to average voltage. One
can use a choke and cap after the diode in the same way.
I've not needed to explore all that because I find the CF driving the
diode which charges the RC works just fine. The second CF can also be
rigged as a low gain AF amp with RC coupllng but R is a bias R of say
1M5 taken to a tap on Rk, so it appears as maybe 5M0 to the detector
circuit so cut off at high AM% is avoided.
The anode then can easily give gain = 4. it does mean that where one
has say 2Vrms of AF at the detector, you have 8Vrms at 12AU7 anode,
and that's getting high, tempting high THD, so I prefer having two CF,
with the second just to buffer the RC detector circuit and stop the
vol control loading. some Gain for the poweramp is easily created in a
tone control stage.

It's hard to beat a carefully designed diode detector though.


Depends. Most are distortion generators.


Those are not ³carefully² designed, it is easy to screw up a diode detector, it
is equally easy to build a good one but it costs a little gain. *This and the
output transformer are the areas where the work of ³bean counters² can be most
easily seen.


Indeed.

Most bean counters justify their employment by being able to reduce
the parts and labour needed to make something, and therefore
increasing shareholder profits and most often reducing the sound
quality and reliability in electronics produced by the company.


The opposite approach, of adding components that serve no useful function
is
just as bad, actually worse.


Each unto their own. everyone has a different way of doing things, and
commercial competition stifles anyone who dares to use one more nut,
bolt or resistor than the ****ing opposition brand. The result is that
they all have competitions to seewho can dumb **** down the most while
maintaining enough sales for the shareholders to dine well.


Hardly, commercial products today are overflowing with every imaginable feature,
each of which adds to the parts count. *Competition today seems to be based more
on features, with cost as a secondary issue, why make something more expensive
than it needs to be to provide the required features and performance?


I have a Marshall JCM2000 60W guitar amp pulled to bits on the bench.
It has an enormous lot of features and 5 times the number of R&C used
in 1960, and maybe 15 opamps and it is a complete PIA to work upon.

Nobody much gives a **** about the concerns I have, such as it should
be simple and easy. But some guitar amps are excellently configured
with ultra simplicity, real class A, and hardly any features. The
really good musos don't need features; they know how to entertain
without needing gear features to cover shortcomings.



If it makes you ill to use one more cathode follower than someone
somewhere said could be superflous, then don't. But I will. In my
vicinity there are no shareholders or bean counters, and my clients
get a good deal without having to pay for someone's Cadillac or
expensive lunches, neither of which contribute to sound quality.


An unneeded cathode follower doesn't contribute to sound quality either. *I
won't bother to ask who pays for your lunches and transportation, least it take
us off topic again, but I am reasonably sure they are accounted for in the price
of the amplifiers you build.


I make all payments around here and I hear the benefits of my circuits
as do my customers. I make very low wages with all I do because the
general public never pays artisans very much. I like my work, so I do
my work. Toilet cleaners get paid more. It worries me not, money ain't
everything.

Patrick Turner.


  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:


I already know that a well-designed diode detector works best for me; at
least
since I regressed to tubes, in my IC days I would have answered
differently.


With ICs you get a dc coupled amp and its possible to use an output
diode pointed at an RC circuit with the audio voltage and Vdc fed back
to the FB input port of the IC, and thus get what is supposed to make
the most linear detector imaginable because there is MUCH more NFB
being applied than when using a cathode follower like I do. The IC
input impedance at IF frequency needs to be high though. I have
circuits for doing all that but the CF I use is just fine.


HP had an interesting AM demodulator in their AM/FM modulation meter. The AM
detector used transistors, not ICs. A rough description as I remember it is as
follows. The transistors were configured in what was basically a darlington
configuration. Feedback was taken from the collector through a capacitor to a
pair of parallel diodes back to a summing junction at the base. The two diodes
were connected in opposite directions, with a pair of parallel connected complex
cognate networks in series with one diode at the end connected to the transistor
base. The modulation output was taken across the network that has the form of a
low pass filter IIRC.

You say that you ³have tried out all sorts of AM detector ideas², besides
your
spin on the diode detector, and your ill fated attempts at building a
syncrodyne
receiver, what have you tried?


I've tried a lot of variations on normal arrangements with IF coil
feeding an anode in a vari-mu pentode IF amp and following RC circuit.
The CF seems best to me.

I tried to build a version of the DG Tucker Synchrodyne circuit
published in Wireless World in about 1947. Maybe its now online some
place, and what prevented progess was the making of a suitable
balanced synchronous demodulator. Probably the best way is to use a
toroidal transformer with the core µ just right for range of RF
frequencies. But I never had time to explore how to make such a
tranny. The tucker circuit uses lots more tubes than a superhet and
needs much more practical expertise to get running without loud
whistles while tuning. It was a potentially excellent thing but it was
never to become popular because the superhet was king. Then tried
making a synchrodyne based on a self oscillating 6BE6, and there are
some simple circuits of those around, just RF input tube and 6BE6
needed only. That sort of worked a bit but monkey chatter and whistles
and controlling oscillations just right were easier said than done so
I abandoned the idea and proceeded with a good superhet. AGC is
applied to RF vari-mu cascode triode input amp and 6AN7mixer, then
6BX6 sharp cut off IF amp without AGC and using some unbypassed Rk for
local current FB. AF bandwidth is 10kHz, with minimum distance between
IF coils, but even with max distance AF BW is about 6kHz. Tone control
boosts and cuts F above 2kHz. 12AU7 CF detector used, and after
comparing the sound of my kitchen AM radio to countless others I have
repaired, my own design is very much better to listen to.


If you are willing to use an IC you can get a whole synchronous detector circuit
in a single IC in the form of one of the old CQUAM AM Stereo decoder IC chips.
There are instructions on the web that describe how to do this.

What the
**** impedes your progress to your workshop and soldering iron?


Two things, first the fact that AM detectors are of academic interest only,
as
there has been no AM broadcasting around this area, that needs anything
better
than the crudest AM detector, for at least 15 years or so. *Second, I think
I am
more interested in putting my soldering iron to work on the John Stewart
inspired ³improved 25L6² amplifier. *There are three binary design
decisions to
be made before I purchase a chassis and begin punching it.


So it seems unlikely you'll ever listen to the benefits of my ideas.

Binary decisions eh. In a bind are you?


Me thinks you misinterpreted what I meant by the term "Binary decisions".

Here are the three decisions I have to make, perhaps I should flip a coin and be
done with it.

1. The output stage will be of the distributed load type with 50% of the load in
the cathode circuit, and 50% in the plate circuit. The decision yet to be taken
is should I use the McIntosh output circuit, or an Acoustical style of output
circuit? This decision will have some impact on the layout of the power supply.

2. I must settle on the output tubes to be used, a QUAD of 25L6GTs in push-pull
parallel, or a pair of 7695s. Actually this is a ternary choice, the KT55 is
another possible choice for the output tubes, while these are cool tubes,
finding some would probably not be easy. The output tube choice has a major
impact on the chassis size, and layout, so I have to settle it before I purchase
a chassis and begin drilling and punching it.

3. The driver tube must also be specified, the binary choice was between the
6211, and the 12AU7, yesterday I made it a ternary choice by adding the 12AT7 to
the list. These tubes all use the same socket, so they can all be tried with
only a change of cathode resistor.

I googled * Telefunken AM rebroadcast receiver "Ballempfänger"
Nothing to be seen.


You weren't persistent enough, for a general description go he

http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/telefun...faenger_b.html

If you aren't a member, I'm not, you won't be able to see the schematic.
*The
schematic is available from several other web sites though, you can find it
in
two parts he

http://www.tsf-radio.org/schph.php?f...Ball-Empfanger...

and he

http://www.tsf-radio.org/schph.php?f...Ball-Empfanger...

While the design looks like the ³bean counters² were kept at a safe
distance,
there still isn't a cathode follower in sight!


Those links open but the pictures won't open to reveal what you are
talking about.

I doubt I am missing anything.


I think you are just intimidated by the excellent German engineering in this
receiver, to eliminate any possible excuse of your not being able to open it, I
have posted a copy of the schematic on my web pages at this URL:

http://fmamradios.com/stuff/E1.pdf

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

On Jul 12, 12:42*pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*Patrick Turner wrote:



I already know that a well-designed diode detector works best for me; at
least
since I regressed to tubes, in my IC days I would have answered
differently.


With ICs you get a dc coupled amp and its possible to use an output
diode pointed at an RC circuit with the audio voltage and Vdc fed back
to the FB input port of the IC, and thus get what is supposed to make
the most linear detector imaginable because there is MUCH more NFB
being applied than when using a cathode follower like I do. The IC
input impedance at IF frequency needs to be high though. I have
circuits for doing all that but the CF I use is just fine.


HP had an interesting AM demodulator in their AM/FM modulation meter. *The AM
detector used transistors, not ICs. *A rough description as I remember it is as
follows. *The transistors were configured in what was basically a darlington
configuration. *Feedback was taken from the collector through a capacitor to a
pair of parallel diodes back to a summing junction at the base. *The two diodes
were connected in opposite directions, with a pair of parallel connected complex
cognate networks in series with one diode at the end connected to the transistor
base. *The modulation output was taken across the network that has the form of a
low pass filter IIRC.


It'd be nice to have a schematic John. Then 1,000 words are told with
1 picture.





You say that you ³have tried out all sorts of AM detector ideas², besides
your
spin on the diode detector, and your ill fated attempts at building a
syncrodyne
receiver, what have you tried?


I've tried a lot of variations on normal arrangements with IF coil
feeding an anode in a vari-mu pentode IF amp and following RC circuit.
The CF seems best to me.


I tried to build a version of the DG Tucker Synchrodyne circuit
published in Wireless World in about 1947. Maybe its now online some
place, and what prevented progess was the making of a suitable
balanced synchronous demodulator. Probably the best way is to use a
toroidal transformer with the core µ just right for range of RF
frequencies. But I never had time to explore how to make such a
tranny. The tucker circuit uses lots more tubes than a superhet and
needs much more practical expertise to get running without loud
whistles while tuning. It was a potentially excellent thing but it was
never to become popular because the superhet was king. Then tried
making a synchrodyne based on a self oscillating 6BE6, and there are
some simple circuits of those around, just RF input tube and 6BE6
needed only. That sort of worked a bit but monkey chatter and whistles
and controlling oscillations just right were easier said than done so
I abandoned the idea and proceeded with a good superhet. AGC is
applied to RF vari-mu cascode triode input amp and 6AN7mixer, then
6BX6 sharp cut off IF amp without AGC and using some unbypassed Rk for
local current FB. AF bandwidth is 10kHz, with minimum distance between
IF coils, but even with max distance AF BW is about 6kHz. Tone control
boosts and cuts F above 2kHz. 12AU7 CF detector used, and after
comparing the sound of my kitchen AM radio to countless others I have
repaired, my own design is very much better to listen to.


If you are willing to use an IC you can get a whole synchronous detector circuit
in a single IC in the form of one of the old CQUAM AM Stereo decoder IC chips. *
There are instructions on the web that describe how to do this.


All sorts of things are possible, but the humble pair of CFs for me is
the most appropriate in a tube radio.

If I had the time I'd investigate further but I really have little
need, and I'm perpetually busy fixing people's radios, amps and
speakers. I dunno about you, but I must work or I starve, and find
time to ride 200km a week on a bike.


*There are three binary design
decisions to
be made before I purchase a chassis and begin punching it.


So it seems unlikely you'll ever listen to the benefits of my ideas.


Binary decisions eh. *In a bind are you?


Me thinks you misinterpreted what I meant by the term "Binary decisions".


Er, no, its just my Cents of Hugh Mer.


Here are the three decisions I have to make, perhaps I should flip a coin and be
done with it.

1. The output stage will be of the distributed load type with 50% of the load in
the cathode circuit, and 50% in the plate circuit. *The decision yet to be taken
is should I use the McIntosh output circuit, or an Acoustical style of output
circuit? *This decision will have some impact on the layout of the power supply.


So how long have you been wondering what the F to do? Who is t say
you'll flip a coin tommorrow, then later un-decide what the coin said,
and keep flipping until a better outcome appears. Could Flipper help?

The McIntosh method gives the best measurements, and you don't need
bifilar OPT windings. EAR did a quasi McI amp in the EAR 509 with some
PL509 HORRIBLE output tubes, and it was to get 100W with high NFB and
its sounded terrible, and using a pair of KT88 with UL or CFB of 20%
and aiming to get 50W max with high % of class A1 working, say 15W max
at least, will give excellent performance with one less gain stage.
But during the next 15 years you'll have plenty of time to consider.

2. I must settle on the output tubes to be used, a QUAD of 25L6GTs in push-pull
parallel, or a pair of 7695s. *Actually this is a ternary choice, the KT55 is
another possible choice for the output tubes, while these are cool tubes,
finding some would probably not be easy. *The output tube choice has a major
impact on the chassis size, and layout, so I have to settle it before I purchase
a chassis and begin drilling and punching it.


Its often not what you use, but how you use it that counts.

3. The driver tube must also be specified, the binary choice was between the
6211, and the 12AU7, yesterday I made it a ternary choice by adding the 12AT7 to
the list. *These tubes all use the same socket, so they can all be tried with
only a change of cathode resistor.


Good luck.

I guess we may never know how your project ends up at the present rate
of progress.







I googled * Telefunken AM rebroadcast receiver "Ballempfänger"
Nothing to be seen.


You weren't persistent enough, for a general description go he


http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/telefun...faenger_b.html


If you aren't a member, I'm not, you won't be able to see the schematic.
*The
schematic is available from several other web sites though, you can find it
in
two parts he


http://www.tsf-radio.org/schph.php?f...Ball-Empfanger...


and he


http://www.tsf-radio.org/schph.php?f...Ball-Empfanger...


While the design looks like the ³bean counters² were kept at a safe
distance,
there still isn't a cathode follower in sight!


Those links open but the pictures won't open to reveal what you are
talking about.


I doubt I am missing anything.


I think you are just intimidated by the excellent German engineering in this
receiver, to eliminate any possible excuse of your not being able to open it, I
have posted a copy of the schematic on my web pages at this URL:

http://fmamradios.com/stuff/E1.pdf


Not a bad radio schematic, but I'm not going to adopt any of the
German techniques. Too complex. This radio has UMPTEEN PARTS which
don't need to be there just to get strong local AM stations with hi-fi
quality.
While you won't accept my use of one lousy cathode follower, you are
putting a radio set under my nose which has maybe 200 parts I don't
need to use to attain my simple goals.

AM radios tend to waste huge chunks of my time with very little
profit, and I just do what works for me, and this includes far more
simplicity than what the Germans may have done.

I have several communication radios and trancievers which all need re-
builds. An old radio ham I knew died and his folks sold all they
could, but then there was still a small mountain of collectable stuff
left over in various states of dis-repair. So they rang me to collect
what would have gone to a tip. Took me a week to collect and sort it
then another week to extend my storage areas with shelving to keep the
old junk.

Going right over it all and all would take weeks before even one radio
set could be declared to be "good at what they do", without all sorts
if intermittencies and noises because of old switches and contacts and
crap. But listening on SW is a bit boring, and even if one joins in
discussions with radio amateurs after building one's own little old
radio station, one ends talking to old guys about their latest surgery
and health bothers and old age problems. Kinda puts me to sleep,
listenin' to them droning on nerdishly, saying so many words, but
trying to be un-personal, and not saying much at all. There are many
who just like to broadcast, and their audience never really exists.
They can't convey their creativity with pictures very well.

Rather than put up with droners, I have my own life to do, and a
living to be earned, and fitness to be maintained.

Patrick Turner.

  #73   Report Post  
John L Stewart John L Stewart is offline
Senior Member
 
Location: Toronto
Posts: 301
Thumbs up

If you are willing to use an IC you can get a whole synchronous detector circuit
in a single IC in the form of one of the old CQUAM AM Stereo decoder IC chips.
There are instructions on the web that describe how to do this.

What the
**** impedes your progress to your workshop and soldering iron?


Two things, first the fact that AM detectors are of academic interest only,
as
there has been no AM broadcasting around this area, that needs anything
better
than the crudest AM detector, for at least 15 years or so. *Second, I think
I am
more interested in putting my soldering iron to work on the John Stewart
inspired ³improved 25L6² amplifier. *There are three binary design
decisions to
be made before I purchase a chassis and begin punching it.


So it seems unlikely you'll ever listen to the benefits of my ideas.

Binary decisions eh. In a bind are you?


Me thinks you misinterpreted what I meant by the term "Binary decisions".

Here are the three decisions I have to make, perhaps I should flip a coin and be
done with it.

1. The output stage will be of the distributed load type with 50% of the load in
the cathode circuit, and 50% in the plate circuit. The decision yet to be taken
is should I use the McIntosh output circuit, or an Acoustical style of output
circuit? This decision will have some impact on the layout of the power supply.

2. I must settle on the output tubes to be used, a QUAD of 25L6GTs in push-pull
parallel, or a pair of 7695s. Actually this is a ternary choice, the KT55 is
another possible choice for the output tubes, while these are cool tubes,
finding some would probably not be easy. The output tube choice has a major
impact on the chassis size, and layout, so I have to settle it before I purchase
a chassis and begin drilling and punching it.

3. The driver tube must also be specified, the binary choice was between the
6211, and the 12AU7, yesterday I made it a ternary choice by adding the 12AT7 to
the list. These tubes all use the same socket, so they can all be tried with
only a change of cathode resistor.http://fmamradios.com/stuff/E1.pdf

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/[/quote]

Hey John, I just now checked at Antique Electronics. 7695s are cheap at $3.45. The 6.3 volt version is the 7754.

You & I had discussed this cct at length in Fall 2004. I would have thought you would have moved forward with it by now. I ended up suggesting the 17EW8 as the driver into your choke coupled interstage transformer scheme since it has lower rp than some other drivers you had considered.

The final schema with simulations is attached. The label on the OPTs should read 1:0.173, not as shown.

Cheers to all, John
Attached Images
 
  #74   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

snip

A drawback - a despised electrolytic as a shaping component.


Btw, there's another means of achieving a modest 'LF shelf', using a
concertina, and that's to boostrap the gain stage load off the
concertina cathode. Gain drops at LF as the boostrap rolls off.


This has been done in some Dynaco schematics which have the concertina
cathode driving the top of a RLdc via an electro cap, therefore
supplying positive FB to the input pentode by means of increasing the
RL the pentode anode "sees" so that pentode gain goes much higher
therefore making a given amount of GNFB much more effective. Basically
while peter robs paul and you light a fire under both, they tend to
become very active indeed.

If the input tube is a lowly triode who's gain is determined by its
lower µ the PFB effect is minimal, and whether there is a bootstrap or
not won't change VLF gain very much, so the shelving networks seen
throughout my website are perhaps the better way with triodes.

It has the added advantage of boosting stage gain and theoretically
lowering distortion from the (idealized) 'infinite impedance' of the
bootstrap


The bootstrap from concertina cathode could be taken from an
additional triode cathode follower which is driven directly off the
cathode so concertina R values remain unchanged, ie, anode RL =
cathode RL. The CF can then be used to drive a two resistor R divider
to V1 anode. One has to be careful that cut off distortion with the AC
coupling does not happen.

The concertina resistors need adjusting to re-balance the load, and
that causes an offset toward B+, but that can be an advantage as well
since direct coupled concertinas on modest B+ rails can end up with
rather low anode voltage on the gain stage and the offset bumps that
up.


Yes, indeed. I would say I prefer the LTP driver with cathode CCS with
say 6SN7/6CG7/12BH7/12AU7 or EL84. Then the LTP acts as a balanced
pair with very low THD. Whatever the input tube is, pentode or
triode, it has only to produce a low signal in SE mode so THD remains
lower than if you have an input tube needing to make slightly more Va
than is applied to each output tube grid.

There's plenny of headroom for the function of the shelving network.
The LTP does not need to be directly
driven from input gain tube anode, so the LTP can have much more
headroom than found in most samples of amps like Leak and Manley Labs
et all.

Patrick Turner.


  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default VLF stability in Williamson-type amplifiers

On Jul 16, 3:07*pm, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 02:03:07 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner





wrote:
snip


A drawback - a despised electrolytic as a shaping component.


Btw, there's another means of achieving a modest 'LF shelf', using a
concertina, and that's to boostrap the gain stage load off the
concertina cathode. Gain drops at LF as the boostrap rolls off.


This has been done in some Dynaco schematics which have the concertina
cathode driving the top of a RLdc via an electro cap, therefore
supplying positive FB to the input pentode by means of increasing the
RL the pentode anode "sees" so that pentode gain goes much higher
therefore making a given amount of GNFB much more effective. Basically
while peter robs paul and you light a fire under both, they tend to
become very active indeed.


Of course it's been done before.

If the input tube is a lowly triode who's gain is determined by its
lower µ the PFB effect is minimal, and whether there is a bootstrap or
not won't change VLF gain very much, so the shelving networks seen
throughout my website are perhaps the better way with triodes.


Depends, but 6 dB isn't a bad rough cut rule of thumb.

Sometimes 'just a little more' is all it takes and, at least with the
ones I've done, the capacitor values are usually, or can be, small
enough to use film and avoid electrolytics.

My "Stealth AX" amp does it sort of 'in reverse'. The gain triode Rl
is under the concertina splitter, for the 'infinite impedance'
bootstrap, and the signal is cap coupled to the concertina grid.

It has the added advantage of boosting stage gain and theoretically
lowering distortion from the (idealized) 'infinite impedance' of the
bootstrap


The bootstrap from concertina cathode could be taken from an
additional triode cathode follower which is driven directly off the
cathode so concertina R values remain unchanged, ie, anode RL =
cathode RL. The CF can then be used to drive a two resistor R divider
to V1 anode. One has to be careful that cut off distortion with the AC
coupling does not happen.


It "could be" but it seems an unnecessary waste of a tube.

The concertina resistors need adjusting to re-balance the load, and
that causes an offset toward B+, but that can be an advantage as well
since direct coupled concertinas on modest B+ rails can end up with
rather low anode voltage on the gain stage and the offset bumps that
up.


Yes, indeed. I would say I prefer the LTP driver with cathode CCS with
say 6SN7/6CG7/12BH7/12AU7 or EL84. Then the LTP acts as a balanced
pair with very low THD.


It isn't as low as a 100% NFB cathode follower, like the concertina,
and it's more tubes.


It depends. Have a look at
http://www.turneraudio.com.au/300w-1...tput-jan06.htm

Here I have an LTP which produces less than 0.5% THD at two phases of
85Vrms from each driver triode.

To do a similar thing with concertina, you'd have a triode making
170Vrms Va-k, and one might do that using an EL84 in triode, and the
drive voltage to the Concer grid would be 95Vrms. The previous stage
has to make a shirt&trouser load sized signal, maybe with 5% THD. Now
the concer stage OLG THD might be 10%, and with the CLG gain reduction
to about 2, the 10% is reduced to 1.2%, but basically you end up with
more 2H than I get with LTP which has natural cancelling of 2H. Now in
a typical Williamson, the balanced amp needs to make only 2 phases of
about say 32Vrms to power a couple of 6550 in triode. So the concer
makes only two phases of 2V and input tube makes only 2.2V at
clipping. Now with the Willy, the input concer stages usually have
such LOW signals at normal listening levels, say less than 0.2Vrms,
the THD is down at 0.05% and is reduced by the GNFB to utterly
negligible levels. The same goes for the use of the LTP in my amps.

So the discussion of "what is best" becomes of academic interest only.
In small amps with UL output stages with EL84, the SE input triode
with SE concer stage is all one needs and sounds/measured fine. If you
use an extra triode and make an LTP, you might find the amp can be
made more sensitive, and the THD will be almost indentical to the
concer stage but with less 2H present. Both ideas work fine where
signals are low, but in my high powered amps the concer drive stage is
not so hot. McIntosh amps have balanced driver stages.
Most makers use LTP or balanced with larger tubes.

*Whatever the input tube is, pentode or
triode, it has only to produce a low signal in SE mode so THD remains
lower than if you have an input tube needing to make slightly more Va
than is applied to each output tube grid.


Distortion is also increased by the extra tubes.

I happen to like the LTP too but that doesn't mean everything else is
crap and, like all design tradeoffs, "it depends" (on everything
else).


There's more than one way to do things.

A concertina is enough to drive a pair of 6BQ5s all by itself without
interposing another set of tubes and while that may not be your cup of
tea it makes for a perfectly fine little amp.


I agree entirely.

An LTP driven single ended has only half the gain of Williamson's
concertina double driven short tail and while I know you think
converting that to an LTP 'reduces distortion' it's at a place in the
amp likely to be of little consequence since the vast majority of
distortion is in the output stage. So far that's a "why not?" but the
LPT does cause overload interaction on positive grid drive, as does a
concertina *if* it's the thing doing the driving (but it's buffered in
the Williamson). It might not seem like such a big deal but I've seen
that cause HF instability on both the concertina and LPT and is the
reason some add a series grid resistor between the concertina and
output tubes when driving them directly.


Usually HF instability is due to the OLG phase shift characteristic
and once you have the correct gain shelving and zobels the HF becomes
entirely stable. And of course the grid stoppers are always a good
idea.

There's plenny of headroom for the function of the shelving network.
The LTP does not need to be directly
driven from input gain tube anode, so the LTP can have much more
headroom than found in most samples of amps like Leak and Manley Labs
et all.


What 'headroom'? The shelving network is zero loss in band.

Or do you mean for your shelf's 'peaking', which a bootstrap roll off
doesn't cause?

All I said is there was "another means," and I don't know that I'd do
it for 'just that', but it's an interesting aspect to consider if one
also wants the added gain.


Observation of the error signal at V1 anode output when feeding the
amp a level input signal between 1Hz to 100Hz will show that the LF
shelving network is OK. The reference 1kHz signal should produce half
maximum l Vo. Then if you drop the input F and plot the response at
all electrodes, you'll understand. And what will help matters is that
you have passive input CR input filter with pole at 8 Hz. You just
don't need to try to have the amp vainly try to make a big effort with
a 3Hz signal.

Patrick Turner.


  #76   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default HP AM Demodulator (was: VLF stability)

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jul 12, 12:42*pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article
,
*Patrick Turner wrote:



I already know that a well-designed diode detector works best for me;
at
least
since I regressed to tubes, in my IC days I would have answered
differently.


With ICs you get a dc coupled amp and its possible to use an output
diode pointed at an RC circuit with the audio voltage and Vdc fed back
to the FB input port of the IC, and thus get what is supposed to make
the most linear detector imaginable because there is MUCH more NFB
being applied than when using a cathode follower like I do. The IC
input impedance at IF frequency needs to be high though. I have
circuits for doing all that but the CF I use is just fine.


HP had an interesting AM demodulator in their AM/FM modulation meter.
The AM detector used transistors, not ICs. *A rough description as I
remember it is as follows. *The transistors were configured in what
was basically a darlington configuration. *Feedback was taken from the
collector through a capacitor to a pair of parallel diodes back to a
summing junction at the base. *The two diodes were connected in
opposite directions, with a pair of parallel connected complex cognate
networks in series with one diode at the end connected to the
transistor base. *The modulation output was taken across the network
that has the form of a low pass filter IIRC.


It'd be nice to have a schematic John. Then 1,000 words are told with
1 picture.


Hi Patrick,

Sorry that I forgot about your schematic request, however sometimes other things
in life take precedence. The following files contain a description and a
simplified schematic of the HP AM Demodulator that I was talking about.

http://www.fmamradios.com/HP_AM_Demo...979-Cover1.jpg
www.fmamradios.com/HP_AM_Demod/HPJ-979-P12.jpg
www.fmamradios.com/HP_AM_Demod/HPJ-979-P13.jpg
www.fmamradios.com/HP_AM_Demod/HPJ-979-P14.jpg

The AM distortion is claimed to be less than 0.1%, although this article doesn't
say what modulation depth this is good to. IIRC the service manual contains
those details. I believe that the ³audio² bandwidth of this detector is
something on the order of 250 kHz. I have a copy of the relevant pages from the
service manual somewhere around here, with a detailed schematic and parts list,
however I am not going to try and dig it out, the simplified schematic should
suffice to convey the basic idea. The specs as to modulation depth vs.
distortion are probably also in the relevant HP catalog, I believe some of these
old HP catalogs are available on line, although I don't have any links to hand.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #77   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default HP AM Demodulator (was: VLF stability)

In article ,
John Byrns wrote:

In article
,
Patrick Turner wrote:

On Jul 12, 12:42*pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article
,
*Patrick Turner wrote:



I already know that a well-designed diode detector works best for me;
at
least
since I regressed to tubes, in my IC days I would have answered
differently.

With ICs you get a dc coupled amp and its possible to use an output
diode pointed at an RC circuit with the audio voltage and Vdc fed back
to the FB input port of the IC, and thus get what is supposed to make
the most linear detector imaginable because there is MUCH more NFB
being applied than when using a cathode follower like I do. The IC
input impedance at IF frequency needs to be high though. I have
circuits for doing all that but the CF I use is just fine.

HP had an interesting AM demodulator in their AM/FM modulation meter.
The AM detector used transistors, not ICs. *A rough description as I
remember it is as follows. *The transistors were configured in what
was basically a darlington configuration. *Feedback was taken from the
collector through a capacitor to a pair of parallel diodes back to a
summing junction at the base. *The two diodes were connected in
opposite directions, with a pair of parallel connected complex cognate
networks in series with one diode at the end connected to the
transistor base. *The modulation output was taken across the network
that has the form of a low pass filter IIRC.


It'd be nice to have a schematic John. Then 1,000 words are told with
1 picture.


Hi Patrick,

Sorry that I forgot about your schematic request, however sometimes other
things
in life take precedence. The following files contain a description and a
simplified schematic of the HP AM Demodulator that I was talking about.

http://www.fmamradios.com/HP_AM_Demo...979-Cover1.jpg
www.fmamradios.com/HP_AM_Demod/HPJ-979-P12.jpg
www.fmamradios.com/HP_AM_Demod/HPJ-979-P13.jpg
www.fmamradios.com/HP_AM_Demod/HPJ-979-P14.jpg

The AM distortion is claimed to be less than 0.1%, although this article
doesn't
say what modulation depth this is good to. IIRC the service manual contains
those details. I believe that the ³audio² bandwidth of this detector is
something on the order of 250 kHz. I have a copy of the relevant pages from
the
service manual somewhere around here, with a detailed schematic and parts
list,
however I am not going to try and dig it out, the simplified schematic should
suffice to convey the basic idea. The specs as to modulation depth vs.
distortion are probably also in the relevant HP catalog, I believe some of
these
old HP catalogs are available on line, although I don't have any links to
hand.


Oops sorry I screwed the links up, they should be as follows.

http://www.fmamradios.com/HP_AM_Demo...979-Cover1.jpg
http://www.fmamradios.com/HP_AM_Demod/HPJ-979-P12.jpg
http://www.fmamradios.com/HP_AM_Demod/HPJ-979-P13.jpg
http://www.fmamradios.com/HP_AM_Demod/HPJ-979-P14.jpg

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
  #78   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default HP AM Demodulator (was: VLF stability)

Hi Patrick,

Sorry that I forgot about your schematic request, however sometimes other things
in life take precedence. *The following files contain a description and a
simplified schematic of the HP AM Demodulator that I was talking about.

http://www.fmamradios.com/HP_AM_Demo...PJ-979-P14.jpg

The AM distortion is claimed to be less than 0.1%, although this article doesn't
say what modulation depth this is good to. *IIRC the service manual contains
those details. *I believe that the ³audio² bandwidth of this detector is
something on the order of 250 kHz. *I have a copy of the relevant pages from the
service manual somewhere around here, with a detailed schematic and parts list,
however I am not going to try and dig it out, the simplified schematic should
suffice to convey the basic idea. *The specs as to modulation depth vs.
distortion are probably also in the relevant HP catalog, I believe some of these
old HP catalogs are available on line, although I don't have any links to hand.


Thanks for all those links, but the schematics are not simply
explained or detailed and use more parts than I do and don't use tubes
and I'm not attarcted to trying out anthying they show. Most of it is
about FM detection.

Nothing is there that is specifically worked right out for a simple
old superhet with 455kHz.

My CF detector is looking real good to me.

Patrick Turner.

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Old Paper--The Stability Problem in Feedback Amplifiers The Phantom Vacuum Tubes 16 June 14th 08 07:27 PM
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers Ian Iveson Vacuum Tubes 19 April 18th 08 09:02 AM
Stability in Feedback Amplifiers, Part Deux-A Chris Hornbeck Vacuum Tubes 61 May 27th 07 12:06 AM
Stability in Feedback Amplifiers, Part 2B Chris Hornbeck Vacuum Tubes 10 May 16th 07 02:51 AM
Stability in Feedback Amplifiers Chris Hornbeck Vacuum Tubes 5 April 19th 07 02:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"