Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently
its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
On Nov 24, 3:10*pm, Ian Bell wrote:
The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. I see in all my substitution books that the 6CG7/FQ7/GU7 are functionally equivalent and may be substituted for each other. *Purely* speculative SWAG here - it is entirely possible (and based on other similar tubes) that the original model was developed and patented for a specific use. Other makers wanted "in" on the substitution market, or created a similar device requiring that sort of tube. So, several iterations were developed ultimately combined in the data-base after the 'separate need' went away. Or, the original tube was refined over the years by different makers - therefore they assigned different numbers to it. On the evolutionary side: A 6GU7 shows a 6FQ7 and a 6EV7 as possible subs. But *NOT* a 6CG7. 6EV7 reverses to only those two as well. A 6CG7 only goes to 6FQ and 6GU.... Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
In article ,
Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. The main difference that I am aware of between the 6CG7 and the 6FQ7 is that the 6CG7 includes a shield between the two sections. Presumably this added shield is helpful in some types of applications, such as RF and others. -- Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/ |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
John Byrns wrote:
In article , Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. The main difference that I am aware of between the 6CG7 and the 6FQ7 is that the 6CG7 includes a shield between the two sections. Presumably this added shield is helpful in some types of applications, such as RF and others. I had not noticed that but now that you mention it the data sheets I have show a shield on pin 9 for the 6CG7 but NC for the 6FQ7. I agree with your supposition that this may have been for rf work. The ECC88/6dJ8 for example also has this shield and they were typically used in cascode for VHF front ends. Makes sense to me. Cheers Ian |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 24, 3:10 pm, Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. I see in all my substitution books that the 6CG7/FQ7/GU7 are functionally equivalent and may be substituted for each other. *Purely* speculative SWAG here - it is entirely possible (and based on other similar tubes) that the original model was developed and patented for a specific use. Other makers wanted "in" on the substitution market, or created a similar device requiring that sort of tube. So, several iterations were developed ultimately combined in the data-base after the 'separate need' went away. So, so you happen to know if the 6CG7 preceded the 6FQ7? Or, the original tube was refined over the years by different makers - therefore they assigned different numbers to it. Yes, quite possible. On the evolutionary side: A 6GU7 shows a 6FQ7 and a 6EV7 as possible subs. But *NOT* a 6CG7. 6EV7 reverses to only those two as well. A 6CG7 only goes to 6FQ and 6GU.... So, do you have any experience of the 6FQ7 in audio applications? Cheers Ian Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Ian Bell wrote:
The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian I have some tubes that are marked as both types on the glass. They show 6CG7 with 6FQ7 right under it on the next 'line'. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
PhattyMo wrote:
Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian I have some tubes that are marked as both types on the glass. They show 6CG7 with 6FQ7 right under it on the next 'line'. Interesting. Who made them? Cheers Ian |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
flipper wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:20:52 -0800, PhattyMo wrote: Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian I have some tubes that are marked as both types on the glass. They show 6CG7 with 6FQ7 right under it on the next 'line'. My double marked tubes have 6FQ7 first. I doubt it matters. The GE plate curves are identical for the two with pin 9 shield the only different I see. The 'normal' plate curves look the same as the 6SN7 but the +ve curves run slightly higher... but that may be measurement error. So, on balance it looks like they are identical. Have you noticed any differences in real applications? Cheers Ian |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
"Ian Bell" wrote in message ... PhattyMo wrote: Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian I have some tubes that are marked as both types on the glass. They show 6CG7 with 6FQ7 right under it on the next 'line'. Interesting. Who made them? 6CG7 tubes are available from a number of makers. I have found Westinghouse to be reasonably priced, consistent, and good sounding. Iain |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
On Nov 24, 6:40*pm, Ian Bell wrote:
I see in all my substitution books that the 6CG7/FQ7/GU7 are functionally equivalent and may be substituted for each other. *Purely* speculative SWAG here - it is entirely possible (and based on other similar tubes) that the original model was developed and patented for a specific use. Other makers wanted "in" on the substitution market, or created a similar device requiring that sort of tube. So, several iterations were developed ultimately combined in the data-base after the 'separate need' went away. So, so you happen to know if the 6CG7 preceded the 6FQ7? From what little evidence I have (vintage RCA tube manual & several substitution/characteristic books by Sams, RCA & Sylvania) yes. But not by much. Or, the original tube was refined over the years by different makers - therefore they assigned different numbers to it. Yes, quite possible. On the evolutionary side: A 6GU7 shows a 6FQ7 and a 6EV7 as possible subs. But *NOT* a 6CG7. 6EV7 reverses to only those two as well. A 6CG7 only goes to 6FQ and 6GU.... So, do you have any experience of the 6FQ7 in audio applications? Same books list it as a "Medium Mu Dual Triode" for "General Use". I have never seen these tubes in an audio application, but "general use" means just that. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 24, 6:40 pm, Ian Bell wrote: I see in all my substitution books that the 6CG7/FQ7/GU7 are functionally equivalent and may be substituted for each other. *Purely* speculative SWAG here - it is entirely possible (and based on other similar tubes) that the original model was developed and patented for a specific use. Other makers wanted "in" on the substitution market, or created a similar device requiring that sort of tube. So, several iterations were developed ultimately combined in the data-base after the 'separate need' went away. So, so you happen to know if the 6CG7 preceded the 6FQ7? From what little evidence I have (vintage RCA tube manual & several substitution/characteristic books by Sams, RCA & Sylvania) yes. But not by much. Or, the original tube was refined over the years by different makers - therefore they assigned different numbers to it. Yes, quite possible. On the evolutionary side: A 6GU7 shows a 6FQ7 and a 6EV7 as possible subs. But *NOT* a 6CG7. 6EV7 reverses to only those two as well. A 6CG7 only goes to 6FQ and 6GU.... So, do you have any experience of the 6FQ7 in audio applications? Same books list it as a "Medium Mu Dual Triode" for "General Use". I have never seen these tubes in an audio application, but "general use" means just that. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA Thanks for the info Peter. Looks like I'll just have a to buy a few and try them out. Cheers Ian |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Happy Holidays, RATs!
Try the ST 6F8-G. Top cap is one Grid, built for specific application. The tube is nice and plentiful ... the rolling is more fun cheap ... Happy Ears! Al |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 24, 6:40 pm, Ian Bell wrote: I see in all my substitution books that the 6CG7/FQ7/GU7 are functionally equivalent and may be substituted for each other. *Purely* speculative SWAG here - it is entirely possible (and based on other similar tubes) that the original model was developed and patented for a specific use. Other makers wanted "in" on the substitution market, or created a similar device requiring that sort of tube. So, several iterations were developed ultimately combined in the data-base after the 'separate need' went away. So, so you happen to know if the 6CG7 preceded the 6FQ7? From what little evidence I have (vintage RCA tube manual & several substitution/characteristic books by Sams, RCA & Sylvania) yes. But not by much. Or, the original tube was refined over the years by different makers - therefore they assigned different numbers to it. Yes, quite possible. On the evolutionary side: A 6GU7 shows a 6FQ7 and a 6EV7 as possible subs. But *NOT* a 6CG7. 6EV7 reverses to only those two as well. A 6CG7 only goes to 6FQ and 6GU.... So, do you have any experience of the 6FQ7 in audio applications? Same books list it as a "Medium Mu Dual Triode" for "General Use". I have never seen these tubes in an audio application, but "general use" means just that. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA I just found a web site called appropriately enough www.6SN7.com which has loads of info on this tube. In the history section it states: "In 1954, RCA came out with the 6CG7, which was pitched as a direct equivalent of the 6SN7GT. Although audiophiles found that the 6SN7GT typically sounded better, this was the beginning of the end for widespread usage of the 6SN7GT. The 6CG7 was unique in having a shield between the two sections. This was removed as a cost-cutting measure in the 6FQ7." It also states that: "According to Ludwell Sibley's Tube Lore, the 6SN7GT was registered with the RMA on March 3rd, 1941, with data from RCA and Sylvania. RCA was likely the developer, since it had assigned a development number of "A4273B". The immediate predecessor of the 6SN7GT was the 6F8G, developed by RCA in 1937." Lots of other interesting stuff about this tube on this site too. Cheers Ian |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
flipper wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:20:52 -0800, PhattyMo wrote: Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian I have some tubes that are marked as both types on the glass. They show 6CG7 with 6FQ7 right under it on the next 'line'. My double marked tubes have 6FQ7 first. You could be right,I'm going from memory. I do know that they are marked with both numbers however. I doubt it matters. The GE plate curves are identical for the two with pin 9 shield the only different I see. The 'normal' plate curves look the same as the 6SN7 but the +ve curves run slightly higher... but that may be measurement error. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
flipper wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:42:16 -0800, PhattyMo wrote: flipper wrote: On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:20:52 -0800, PhattyMo wrote: Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian I have some tubes that are marked as both types on the glass. They show 6CG7 with 6FQ7 right under it on the next 'line'. My double marked tubes have 6FQ7 first. You could be right,I'm going from memory. I do know that they are marked with both numbers however. I didn't mean to suggest it matters..... but... hmm... maybe it does. Maybe it means no shield. Now you've got me curious,so I grabbed one. Marked as: USA 6FQ7/ 6CG7 It does not have a shield. *shrug* I doubt it matters. The GE plate curves are identical for the two with pin 9 shield the only different I see. The 'normal' plate curves look the same as the 6SN7 but the +ve curves run slightly higher... but that may be measurement error. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
flipper wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:39:05 -0800, PhattyMo wrote: flipper wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:42:16 -0800, PhattyMo wrote: flipper wrote: On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:20:52 -0800, PhattyMo wrote: Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian I have some tubes that are marked as both types on the glass. They show 6CG7 with 6FQ7 right under it on the next 'line'. My double marked tubes have 6FQ7 first. You could be right,I'm going from memory. I do know that they are marked with both numbers however. I didn't mean to suggest it matters..... but... hmm... maybe it does. Maybe it means no shield. Now you've got me curious,so I grabbed one. Marked as: USA 6FQ7/ 6CG7 It does not have a shield. *shrug* Well, it makes sense or, rather, that's how I would do it. Put the one that defines the feature set first. Doesn't mean that's what they were thinking but it fits the few we've looked at. According to www.6sn7.com the 6CG7 with the screen came out first and the 6FQ7 was a later cost reduced version without the screen. Cheers Ian |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian The 3 tubes have virtually the same gm, µ, and Ra wherever you find them. Many varieties exist, with Siemans NOS probably the best. The CG7/FQ7 have slightly lower Pda ratings than the 6SN7. I found the Siemans 6CG7 to have a slightly higher µ. Anode and grid size varies with varieties, but as long as you keep the relative distances inside the tube about the same the gm, Ra and µ stay about constant. Patrick Turner. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Patrick Turner wrote:
Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian The 3 tubes have virtually the same gm, µ, and Ra wherever you find them. Many varieties exist, with Siemans NOS probably the best. The CG7/FQ7 have slightly lower Pda ratings than the 6SN7. I found the Siemans 6CG7 to have a slightly higher µ. Anode and grid size varies with varieties, but as long as you keep the relative distances inside the tube about the same the gm, Ra and µ stay about constant. Patrick Turner. I simulated a 6sn7 in mu follower circuit and it gave very good distortion figures - best I've seen yet - this was at 8mA Ia. So I ordered some from Colomor valves in the UK so I can try them out. They are the 6FQ7 version made by Matsu****a - didn't know they made tubes. Does Matsu****a have a good or bad reputation for its tubes?? Cheers Ian |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Ian Bell wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian The 3 tubes have virtually the same gm, µ, and Ra wherever you find them. Many varieties exist, with Siemans NOS probably the best. The CG7/FQ7 have slightly lower Pda ratings than the 6SN7. I found the Siemans 6CG7 to have a slightly higher µ. Anode and grid size varies with varieties, but as long as you keep the relative distances inside the tube about the same the gm, Ra and µ stay about constant. Patrick Turner. I simulated a 6sn7 in mu follower circuit and it gave very good distortion figures - best I've seen yet - this was at 8mA Ia. So I ordered some from Colomor valves in the UK so I can try them out. They are the 6FQ7 version made by Matsu****a - didn't know they made tubes. Does Matsu****a have a good or bad reputation for its tubes?? Japanese. I doubt the japs made worse sounding tubes than anyone else. Its not going to cost you much to find out for yourself. The secret to the µ-follower is that you have a large enough R between top cathode and bottom anode. If the Ia = 8mA, and that would be only good if output voltage swing is smallish, then the Ea can be say 100V for top and bottom tube and if the B+ = 300V, then you can have 100V across the R between the two tubes, so R = 12k. If the top tube internal gain is 18, then the bottom tube has an anode load = 18 x 12k, plus any biasing R. Its still only 216k effectively, or about 25 x Ra. But you should get less than 0.1% THD at 10Vrms output, which means less than 0.01% at 1V output, which isn't much, eh. Patrick Turner. Cheers Ian |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Patrick Turner wrote:
Ian Bell wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian The 3 tubes have virtually the same gm, µ, and Ra wherever you find them. Many varieties exist, with Siemans NOS probably the best. The CG7/FQ7 have slightly lower Pda ratings than the 6SN7. I found the Siemans 6CG7 to have a slightly higher µ. Anode and grid size varies with varieties, but as long as you keep the relative distances inside the tube about the same the gm, Ra and µ stay about constant. Patrick Turner. I simulated a 6sn7 in mu follower circuit and it gave very good distortion figures - best I've seen yet - this was at 8mA Ia. So I ordered some from Colomor valves in the UK so I can try them out. They are the 6FQ7 version made by Matsu****a - didn't know they made tubes. Does Matsu****a have a good or bad reputation for its tubes?? Japanese. I doubt the japs made worse sounding tubes than anyone else. Its not going to cost you much to find out for yourself. The secret to the µ-follower is that you have a large enough R between top cathode and bottom anode. If the Ia = 8mA, and that would be only good if output voltage swing is smallish, then the Ea can be say 100V for top and bottom tube and if the B+ = 300V, then you can have 100V across the R between the two tubes, so R = 12k. If the top tube internal gain is 18, then the bottom tube has an anode load = 18 x 12k, plus any biasing R. Its still only 216k effectively, or about 25 x Ra. But you should get less than 0.1% THD at 10Vrms output, which means less than 0.01% at 1V output, which isn't much, eh. The design I simulated is very similar to that but with a 285V supply and R = 10K resistor and 100V across each triode. I did not want to up the supply much beyond 300V because at present the top cathode sits at over 180V so I'll need to raise the heaters to about 100V because the max dc heater positive to cathode voltage is only 100V according to the data sheet. From what I can gather there are three factors that govern the distortion in mu followers. The first is anode current - higher anode currents give lower measured distortion. The second, as you say is the effective Rp determined by the top tube mu and the resistor between. This essentially reduces the effect of varying ra on distortion. The last factor is the tube type and from the tests I have done so far this seems to make the largest difference. You can try almost any of the regular modest mu double triodes (6DJ6, 12AU7, 6N1P) and you will get between 0.5% and 1% THD at 20V rms and about a tenth that at 2V rms. However, use a 6SN7 (or one of its derivatives) at the same current and the 20V rms THD drops to little more than 0.1%. I was curious why this should be and then I came across an interesting web page about the internal construction of tubes and its effect on linearity. You can see for yourself he http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/g8hqp/audio/valvedist.html I have no idea if what he says is true but it would explain why the 6SN7 is so well liked in audio circles. Cheers Ian Patrick Turner. Cheers Ian |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Ian Bell wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ian Bell wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian The 3 tubes have virtually the same gm, µ, and Ra wherever you find them. Many varieties exist, with Siemans NOS probably the best. The CG7/FQ7 have slightly lower Pda ratings than the 6SN7. I found the Siemans 6CG7 to have a slightly higher µ. Anode and grid size varies with varieties, but as long as you keep the relative distances inside the tube about the same the gm, Ra and µ stay about constant. Patrick Turner. I simulated a 6sn7 in mu follower circuit and it gave very good distortion figures - best I've seen yet - this was at 8mA Ia. So I ordered some from Colomor valves in the UK so I can try them out. They are the 6FQ7 version made by Matsu****a - didn't know they made tubes. Does Matsu****a have a good or bad reputation for its tubes?? Japanese. I doubt the japs made worse sounding tubes than anyone else. Its not going to cost you much to find out for yourself. The secret to the µ-follower is that you have a large enough R between top cathode and bottom anode. If the Ia = 8mA, and that would be only good if output voltage swing is smallish, then the Ea can be say 100V for top and bottom tube and if the B+ = 300V, then you can have 100V across the R between the two tubes, so R = 12k. If the top tube internal gain is 18, then the bottom tube has an anode load = 18 x 12k, plus any biasing R. Its still only 216k effectively, or about 25 x Ra. But you should get less than 0.1% THD at 10Vrms output, which means less than 0.01% at 1V output, which isn't much, eh. The design I simulated is very similar to that but with a 285V supply and R = 10K resistor and 100V across each triode. I did not want to up the supply much beyond 300V because at present the top cathode sits at over 180V so I'll need to raise the heaters to about 100V because the max dc heater positive to cathode voltage is only 100V according to the data sheet. The idea is to have the heaters biased at Vdc about 1/2 way between the two cathodes. From what I can gather there are three factors that govern the distortion in mu followers. The first is anode current - higher anode currents give lower measured distortion. This is true with resistance loading also. But the higher Ia, and lower the Ea, the lower the range of Vo because of grid current. The second, as you say is the effective Rp determined by the top tube mu and the resistor between. This essentially reduces the effect of varying ra on distortion. The higher the triode RL becomes, the flatter the load line becomes when you plot it across the Ra curves. The Vo swings don't intersect Ra which changes value. If you have an RL 20Ra, then for 6SN7 that'd mean about 200k, and if the maximum Vo = +/- 33pk then load current change is only +/- 0.16mA if the 200k is the only loading present. So you can have the Ia lower than with a resistance load and still get a linear outcome. Put it this way, if the load approaches a CCS, it becomes pointless to have 6SN7 Ia higher than 4 mA providing 4mA is adequate for the wanted Vo into whatever other load you may have, or Miller C. The last factor is the tube type and from the tests I have done so far this seems to make the largest difference. You can try almost any of the regular modest mu double triodes (6DJ6, 12AU7, 6N1P) and you will get between 0.5% and 1% THD at 20V rms and about a tenth that at 2V rms. However, use a 6SN7 (or one of its derivatives) at the same current and the 20V rms THD drops to little more than 0.1%. I was curious why this should be and then I came across an interesting web page about the internal construction of tubes and its effect on linearity. You can see for yourself he http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/g8hqp/audio/valvedist.html I have no idea if what he says is true but it would explain why the 6SN7 is so well liked in audio circles. There are many varieties of 6SN7 and the ECCxx range of double triodes. ECC32 is a particularly linear twin triode and the 6SN7 is of the same evolutionary "family". Indeed the 6SN7 is a more linear tube than 12AU7, or 12AT7. The 6SN7 often had tubular shaped anodes, grids and cathodes, and to my mind is a more perfect way to make a tube. But take a look at the range of 6CG7 around. Many had the 25mm tall box section anodes of the 6SN7 crammed into the smaller bottle. Damned linear though. Many 6CG7 had overall smaller anode/grid/cathode structures, but the internal part of the anode was a square section. The Siemens 6CG7 are like that and are regarded as the gold standard in twin triodes. But then take a look at a 300B. OK, its a power tube, but its amoung the most linear of all. What I do know is that any variety of 6CG7 and many other medium µ twin triodes are amoung the most linear devices ever invented and which don't need to depend on external loops of NFB to reduce the distortion. The lowest possible THD in a triode occurs where you have a CCS anode load, and zero Ia change when Va changes. The only way to exploit this fully is to have a CCS loaded gain triode direct coupled to a cathode follower buffer. Then you have a CCS cathode load for the CF, and the only load might be a 100k gain pot. The majority of the THD generation is then in the CF but its reduced by the series voltage NFB inherent in the follower connection; ie, if you had 0.1% THD at 10Vrms output with a load = 100k, then the follower connection with 6SN7 would reduce that 0.1% by 1/18 approx, or down to 0.0055%. Even with a horizontal load line, ie CCS load only on the 6SN7, the spacing of the Ra lines for various Eg1 bias values does show that you'll get some THD; the spacing is *not* even between Vg1=0 and Vg1=-5, when the Ea change would have a range of +/-50Vpk. Often when you test a given triode carefully by measuring the THD you will conclude that the people who drew the Ra lines for a given tube were obviously using gear with distortion in the test gear which was of course all tube based and not necessarily more linear than the tubes being measured. The curves drawn so impressively in the best data books such as those produced by STC back in the 1950s are a cause for me to smile, because the nice large pages so well bound and produced are full of what are only approximate Ra curves, and curves which look simply impossible, or implausible, because of their irregular spacing that if true would produce many more artifacts than the usual bit of mainly 2H with all the other harmonic garbage -20dB below the 2H. So hence the breadboard test with accurate measuring gear using test signals with THD 0.002% is essential if you want to bathe your mind with the purity of the truth on vacuum tubes. You cannot simulate the taste of a fine chocolate cake. So don't depend too heavily on a simulator; its only a guesser's tool. Patrick Turner. Cheers Ian Patrick Turner. Cheers Ian |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Patrick Turner wrote:
Ian Bell wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ian Bell wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian The 3 tubes have virtually the same gm, µ, and Ra wherever you find them. Many varieties exist, with Siemans NOS probably the best. The CG7/FQ7 have slightly lower Pda ratings than the 6SN7. I found the Siemans 6CG7 to have a slightly higher µ. Anode and grid size varies with varieties, but as long as you keep the relative distances inside the tube about the same the gm, Ra and µ stay about constant. Patrick Turner. I simulated a 6sn7 in mu follower circuit and it gave very good distortion figures - best I've seen yet - this was at 8mA Ia. So I ordered some from Colomor valves in the UK so I can try them out. They are the 6FQ7 version made by Matsu****a - didn't know they made tubes. Does Matsu****a have a good or bad reputation for its tubes?? Japanese. I doubt the japs made worse sounding tubes than anyone else. Its not going to cost you much to find out for yourself. The secret to the µ-follower is that you have a large enough R between top cathode and bottom anode. If the Ia = 8mA, and that would be only good if output voltage swing is smallish, then the Ea can be say 100V for top and bottom tube and if the B+ = 300V, then you can have 100V across the R between the two tubes, so R = 12k. If the top tube internal gain is 18, then the bottom tube has an anode load = 18 x 12k, plus any biasing R. Its still only 216k effectively, or about 25 x Ra. But you should get less than 0.1% THD at 10Vrms output, which means less than 0.01% at 1V output, which isn't much, eh. The design I simulated is very similar to that but with a 285V supply and R = 10K resistor and 100V across each triode. I did not want to up the supply much beyond 300V because at present the top cathode sits at over 180V so I'll need to raise the heaters to about 100V because the max dc heater positive to cathode voltage is only 100V according to the data sheet. The idea is to have the heaters biased at Vdc about 1/2 way between the two cathodes. From what I can gather there are three factors that govern the distortion in mu followers. The first is anode current - higher anode currents give lower measured distortion. This is true with resistance loading also. But the higher Ia, and lower the Ea, the lower the range of Vo because of grid current. The second, as you say is the effective Rp determined by the top tube mu and the resistor between. This essentially reduces the effect of varying ra on distortion. The higher the triode RL becomes, the flatter the load line becomes when you plot it across the Ra curves. The Vo swings don't intersect Ra which changes value. If you have an RL 20Ra, then for 6SN7 that'd mean about 200k, and if the maximum Vo = +/- 33pk then load current change is only +/- 0.16mA if the 200k is the only loading present. So you can have the Ia lower than with a resistance load and still get a linear outcome. Put it this way, if the load approaches a CCS, it becomes pointless to have 6SN7 Ia higher than 4 mA providing 4mA is adequate for the wanted Vo into whatever other load you may have, or Miller C. The last factor is the tube type and from the tests I have done so far this seems to make the largest difference. You can try almost any of the regular modest mu double triodes (6DJ6, 12AU7, 6N1P) and you will get between 0.5% and 1% THD at 20V rms and about a tenth that at 2V rms. However, use a 6SN7 (or one of its derivatives) at the same current and the 20V rms THD drops to little more than 0.1%. I was curious why this should be and then I came across an interesting web page about the internal construction of tubes and its effect on linearity. You can see for yourself he http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/g8hqp/audio/valvedist.html I have no idea if what he says is true but it would explain why the 6SN7 is so well liked in audio circles. There are many varieties of 6SN7 and the ECCxx range of double triodes. ECC32 is a particularly linear twin triode and the 6SN7 is of the same evolutionary "family". Indeed the 6SN7 is a more linear tube than 12AU7, or 12AT7. The 6SN7 often had tubular shaped anodes, grids and cathodes, and to my mind is a more perfect way to make a tube. But take a look at the range of 6CG7 around. Many had the 25mm tall box section anodes of the 6SN7 crammed into the smaller bottle. Damned linear though. Many 6CG7 had overall smaller anode/grid/cathode structures, but the internal part of the anode was a square section. The Siemens 6CG7 are like that and are regarded as the gold standard in twin triodes. But then take a look at a 300B. OK, its a power tube, but its amoung the most linear of all. What I do know is that any variety of 6CG7 and many other medium µ twin triodes are amoung the most linear devices ever invented and which don't need to depend on external loops of NFB to reduce the distortion. The lowest possible THD in a triode occurs where you have a CCS anode load, and zero Ia change when Va changes. The only way to exploit this fully is to have a CCS loaded gain triode direct coupled to a cathode follower buffer. Then you have a CCS cathode load for the CF, and the only load might be a 100k gain pot. The majority of the THD generation is then in the CF but its reduced by the series voltage NFB inherent in the follower connection; ie, if you had 0.1% THD at 10Vrms output with a load = 100k, then the follower connection with 6SN7 would reduce that 0.1% by 1/18 approx, or down to 0.0055%. Even with a horizontal load line, ie CCS load only on the 6SN7, the spacing of the Ra lines for various Eg1 bias values does show that you'll get some THD; the spacing is *not* even between Vg1=0 and Vg1=-5, when the Ea change would have a range of +/-50Vpk. Often when you test a given triode carefully by measuring the THD you will conclude that the people who drew the Ra lines for a given tube were obviously using gear with distortion in the test gear which was of course all tube based and not necessarily more linear than the tubes being measured. The curves drawn so impressively in the best data books such as those produced by STC back in the 1950s are a cause for me to smile, because the nice large pages so well bound and produced are full of what are only approximate Ra curves, and curves which look simply impossible, or implausible, because of their irregular spacing that if true would produce many more artifacts than the usual bit of mainly 2H with all the other harmonic garbage -20dB below the 2H. So hence the breadboard test with accurate measuring gear using test signals with THD 0.002% is essential if you want to bathe your mind with the purity of the truth on vacuum tubes. You cannot simulate the taste of a fine chocolate cake. So don't depend too heavily on a simulator; its only a guesser's tool. I won't argue with that! The Matsu****a 6cg7 tubes have arrived and I have tested them in the mu follower circuit at 8mA. The results were disappointing. All four gave about 0.7% THD at 20V rms and 0.07% at 2V rms which is no better than I got with an ECC88 or a 6N1P at the same 8mA current. Looking at Morgan Jones test circuit I notice he uses two LEDs in the bottom cathode leg for biassing which sets Vg at about -3.4V and from the curves means the plate voltage is about 140V. He uses a 10K intermediate resistor as I do but his pentode CCS has a 390V supply. My circuit uses a cathode resistor to set Vg to about -1.34V which gives Ea about 117V (measured) and I have a 320V supply. So I thought I might try moving the operating point closer to Jones's, because the curves look less bunched in that region but if I operate both triodes at the same point they have 140V each across them plus 80V across the 10K meaning I need a 360V supply which I don't have. I must admit I assumed both triode halves should be operated at the same point but I am not sure that is necessary assuming the bottom triode is the principal source of distortion. So an alternative would be to run the top CF at the same current but a Vg of -1.2V so it drops just 100V which would fit with my 320V supply. It's an easy mod to make so I think I'll try it. You also mentioned the 6SN7 has 25mm boxed anodes and some 6CG7s cram these into a 9 pin bottle. The Matsu****a ones I have measure about 19mm so there is clearly a difference there but the ECC88 and 6N1P I have measure only 9 and 10mm respectively so the 6CG7 are twice as tall and the box is definitely fatter than the ECC88 etal. Cheers Ian Patrick Turner. Cheers Ian Patrick Turner. Cheers Ian |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Ian Bell wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote: Ian Bell wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ian Bell wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ian Bell wrote: The 6SN7 is said to be a good tube for audio and the 6CG7 is apparently its B9A direct equivalent. Looking for sources of the 6CG7 on the internet I found more examples of its supposed equivalent the 6FQ7 than of the 6CG7 itself. Looking at the data sheets the two seem extremely similar and the 6FQ7 even has slightly less plate to grid capacitance. So, is the 6FQ7 a worthy alternative to the 6CG7? Are there any real differences between the two? Presumably there must be some difference else why have a different number. Cheers Ian The 3 tubes have virtually the same gm, µ, and Ra wherever you find them. Many varieties exist, with Siemans NOS probably the best. The CG7/FQ7 have slightly lower Pda ratings than the 6SN7. I found the Siemans 6CG7 to have a slightly higher µ. Anode and grid size varies with varieties, but as long as you keep the relative distances inside the tube about the same the gm, Ra and µ stay about constant. Patrick Turner. I simulated a 6sn7 in mu follower circuit and it gave very good distortion figures - best I've seen yet - this was at 8mA Ia. So I ordered some from Colomor valves in the UK so I can try them out. They are the 6FQ7 version made by Matsu****a - didn't know they made tubes. Does Matsu****a have a good or bad reputation for its tubes?? Japanese. I doubt the japs made worse sounding tubes than anyone else. Its not going to cost you much to find out for yourself. The secret to the µ-follower is that you have a large enough R between top cathode and bottom anode. If the Ia = 8mA, and that would be only good if output voltage swing is smallish, then the Ea can be say 100V for top and bottom tube and if the B+ = 300V, then you can have 100V across the R between the two tubes, so R = 12k. If the top tube internal gain is 18, then the bottom tube has an anode load = 18 x 12k, plus any biasing R. Its still only 216k effectively, or about 25 x Ra. But you should get less than 0.1% THD at 10Vrms output, which means less than 0.01% at 1V output, which isn't much, eh. The design I simulated is very similar to that but with a 285V supply and R = 10K resistor and 100V across each triode. I did not want to up the supply much beyond 300V because at present the top cathode sits at over 180V so I'll need to raise the heaters to about 100V because the max dc heater positive to cathode voltage is only 100V according to the data sheet. The idea is to have the heaters biased at Vdc about 1/2 way between the two cathodes. From what I can gather there are three factors that govern the distortion in mu followers. The first is anode current - higher anode currents give lower measured distortion. This is true with resistance loading also. But the higher Ia, and lower the Ea, the lower the range of Vo because of grid current. The second, as you say is the effective Rp determined by the top tube mu and the resistor between. This essentially reduces the effect of varying ra on distortion. The higher the triode RL becomes, the flatter the load line becomes when you plot it across the Ra curves. The Vo swings don't intersect Ra which changes value. If you have an RL 20Ra, then for 6SN7 that'd mean about 200k, and if the maximum Vo = +/- 33pk then load current change is only +/- 0.16mA if the 200k is the only loading present. So you can have the Ia lower than with a resistance load and still get a linear outcome. Put it this way, if the load approaches a CCS, it becomes pointless to have 6SN7 Ia higher than 4 mA providing 4mA is adequate for the wanted Vo into whatever other load you may have, or Miller C. The last factor is the tube type and from the tests I have done so far this seems to make the largest difference. You can try almost any of the regular modest mu double triodes (6DJ6, 12AU7, 6N1P) and you will get between 0.5% and 1% THD at 20V rms and about a tenth that at 2V rms. However, use a 6SN7 (or one of its derivatives) at the same current and the 20V rms THD drops to little more than 0.1%. I was curious why this should be and then I came across an interesting web page about the internal construction of tubes and its effect on linearity. You can see for yourself he http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/g8hqp/audio/valvedist.html I have no idea if what he says is true but it would explain why the 6SN7 is so well liked in audio circles. There are many varieties of 6SN7 and the ECCxx range of double triodes. ECC32 is a particularly linear twin triode and the 6SN7 is of the same evolutionary "family". Indeed the 6SN7 is a more linear tube than 12AU7, or 12AT7. The 6SN7 often had tubular shaped anodes, grids and cathodes, and to my mind is a more perfect way to make a tube. But take a look at the range of 6CG7 around. Many had the 25mm tall box section anodes of the 6SN7 crammed into the smaller bottle. Damned linear though. Many 6CG7 had overall smaller anode/grid/cathode structures, but the internal part of the anode was a square section. The Siemens 6CG7 are like that and are regarded as the gold standard in twin triodes. But then take a look at a 300B. OK, its a power tube, but its amoung the most linear of all. What I do know is that any variety of 6CG7 and many other medium µ twin triodes are amoung the most linear devices ever invented and which don't need to depend on external loops of NFB to reduce the distortion. The lowest possible THD in a triode occurs where you have a CCS anode load, and zero Ia change when Va changes. The only way to exploit this fully is to have a CCS loaded gain triode direct coupled to a cathode follower buffer. Then you have a CCS cathode load for the CF, and the only load might be a 100k gain pot. The majority of the THD generation is then in the CF but its reduced by the series voltage NFB inherent in the follower connection; ie, if you had 0.1% THD at 10Vrms output with a load = 100k, then the follower connection with 6SN7 would reduce that 0.1% by 1/18 approx, or down to 0.0055%. Even with a horizontal load line, ie CCS load only on the 6SN7, the spacing of the Ra lines for various Eg1 bias values does show that you'll get some THD; the spacing is *not* even between Vg1=0 and Vg1=-5, when the Ea change would have a range of +/-50Vpk. Often when you test a given triode carefully by measuring the THD you will conclude that the people who drew the Ra lines for a given tube were obviously using gear with distortion in the test gear which was of course all tube based and not necessarily more linear than the tubes being measured. The curves drawn so impressively in the best data books such as those produced by STC back in the 1950s are a cause for me to smile, because the nice large pages so well bound and produced are full of what are only approximate Ra curves, and curves which look simply impossible, or implausible, because of their irregular spacing that if true would produce many more artifacts than the usual bit of mainly 2H with all the other harmonic garbage -20dB below the 2H. So hence the breadboard test with accurate measuring gear using test signals with THD 0.002% is essential if you want to bathe your mind with the purity of the truth on vacuum tubes. You cannot simulate the taste of a fine chocolate cake. So don't depend too heavily on a simulator; its only a guesser's tool. I won't argue with that! The Matsu****a 6cg7 tubes have arrived and I have tested them in the mu follower circuit at 8mA. The results were disappointing. All four gave about 0.7% THD at 20V rms and 0.07% at 2V rms which is no better than I got with an ECC88 or a 6N1P at the same 8mA current. Looking at Morgan Jones test circuit I notice he uses two LEDs in the bottom cathode leg for biassing which sets Vg at about -3.4V and from the curves means the plate voltage is about 140V. He uses a 10K intermediate resistor as I do but his pentode CCS has a 390V supply. My circuit uses a cathode resistor to set Vg to about -1.34V which gives Ea about 117V (measured) and I have a 320V supply. So I thought I might try moving the operating point closer to Jones's, because the curves look less bunched in that region but if I operate both triodes at the same point they have 140V each across them plus 80V across the 10K meaning I need a 360V supply which I don't have. I must admit I assumed both triode halves should be operated at the same point but I am not sure that is necessary assuming the bottom triode is the principal source of distortion. So an alternative would be to run the top CF at the same current but a Vg of -1.2V so it drops just 100V which would fit with my 320V supply. It's an easy mod to make so I think I'll try it. You also mentioned the 6SN7 has 25mm boxed anodes and some 6CG7s cram these into a 9 pin bottle. The Matsu****a ones I have measure about 19mm so there is clearly a difference there but the ECC88 and 6N1P I have measure only 9 and 10mm respectively so the 6CG7 are twice as tall and the box is definitely fatter than the ECC88 etal. Cheers Ian I have now made the mods described above and retested the four Matsu****a 6CG7 tubes. I am pleased to report they all now achieve 0.4% THD at 20V rms. Bearing in mind that Morgan Jones' 6SN7 tests had a 2nd harmonic at -50dB when tested at 19.5V rms which is equivalent to 0.316% and he was using a pentode CCS then I think 0.4% from the 6CG7 mu follower is pretty good. Distortion at 2V rms was 0.04% (all at 1KHz). Cheers Ian |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Ian Bell wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ian Bell wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ian Bell wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ian Bell wrote: snip I won't argue with that! The Matsu****a 6cg7 tubes have arrived and I have tested them in the mu follower circuit at 8mA. The results were disappointing. All four gave about 0.7% THD at 20V rms and 0.07% at 2V rms which is no better than I got with an ECC88 or a 6N1P at the same 8mA current. Looking at Morgan Jones test circuit I notice he uses two LEDs in the bottom cathode leg for biassing which sets Vg at about -3.4V and from the curves means the plate voltage is about 140V. He uses a 10K intermediate resistor as I do but his pentode CCS has a 390V supply. My circuit uses a cathode resistor to set Vg to about -1.34V which gives Ea about 117V (measured) and I have a 320V supply. So I thought I might try moving the operating point closer to Jones's, because the curves look less bunched in that region but if I operate both triodes at the same point they have 140V each across them plus 80V across the 10K meaning I need a 360V supply which I don't have. I must admit I assumed both triode halves should be operated at the same point but I am not sure that is necessary assuming the bottom triode is the principal source of distortion. So an alternative would be to run the top CF at the same current but a Vg of -1.2V so it drops just 100V which would fit with my 320V supply. It's an easy mod to make so I think I'll try it. You also mentioned the 6SN7 has 25mm boxed anodes and some 6CG7s cram these into a 9 pin bottle. The Matsu****a ones I have measure about 19mm so there is clearly a difference there but the ECC88 and 6N1P I have measure only 9 and 10mm respectively so the 6CG7 are twice as tall and the box is definitely fatter than the ECC88 etal. Cheers Ian Nearly all small triodes produce 1% at 10V into RL = 4Ra approx. So at 50 Vo, maybe you get 5% 2H at onset of clipping, and with considerable 3H. But at 1V, you get 0.1%, and very much mostly 2H. You are getting 0.35% at 10V and 0.035% at 1V, a 9dB betterment from what was regarded as normal industry standard. Try using a CCS at the gain anode and have a direct CF to buffer the output to your measuring gear. This will tell just how low THD can ever go. I've seen 1% at 100Vrms from a single 6550 as a triode with CCS. Once over 5mA, and RL 10Ra, extra Ia should not make much difference. Then there are balanced circuits. If you really want to see 2H plunge, try a balanced LTP with CCS cathode sink driving a CF buffers hooked to an OPT. The THD at 10V might be 0.02%, but 3H, not 2H. Patrick Turner. Patrick Turner. Cheers Ian Patrick Turner. Cheers Ian |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
On Nov 25, 3:35*pm, Ian Bell wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 24, 6:40 pm, Ian Bell wrote: (Snip I just found a web site called appropriately enoughwww.6SN7.comwhich has loads of info on this tube. In the history section it states: (snip) Cheers Ian Ian, a great story... thanks, bookmarked. Glad I've got a small boxful... I must now sort them into variants! g Cheers, Roger |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Engineer wrote:
On Nov 25, 3:35 pm, Ian Bell wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 24, 6:40 pm, Ian Bell wrote: (Snip I just found a web site called appropriately enoughwww.6SN7.comwhich has loads of info on this tube. In the history section it states: (snip) Cheers Ian Ian, a great story... thanks, bookmarked. Glad I've got a small boxful... I must now sort them into variants! g Cheers, Roger Are you in the UK? I would like to buy a couple of genuine 6SN7 tubes so I can compare their performance with the 6CG7. Cheers Ian |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
On 7 Dec, 09:26, Ian Bell wrote:
Engineer wrote: On Nov 25, 3:35 pm, Ian Bell wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 24, 6:40 pm, Ian Bell wrote: (Snip I just found a web site called appropriately enoughwww.6SN7.comwhich has loads of info on this tube. In the history section it states: (snip) Cheers Ian Ian, a great story... thanks, bookmarked. *Glad I've got a small boxful... I must now sort them into variants! *g Cheers, Roger Are you in the UK? I would like to buy a couple of genuine 6SN7 tubes so I can compare their performance with the 6CG7. Cheers Ian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ian, I am in the UK, I have some Sylvania 7N7s that are for all intents and purposes 6SN7s. I only have six and I am using four in my curent project so I would like them back but you can borrow them if you like. I have sockets aswell if you need them. The only difference I see in the data sheets is the disipation is the same as the basic 6SN7 2.5W (3.5W?) and the capacitances are way lower. I say 3.5W because a couple of sheets say max anode dis. per envelope as 7-7.5W and the anodes are a bit large for just 2.5W, I may be wrong. I also have quite a few of the Pinnacle 6J5s that Allan Morgan likes. These are clearly re-branded Russian tubes but as Allan clearly demonstrates they measure very well. They are eactly the same as half a 6SN7. Matt. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
bigwig wrote:
On 7 Dec, 09:26, Ian Bell wrote: Engineer wrote: On Nov 25, 3:35 pm, Ian Bell wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 24, 6:40 pm, Ian Bell wrote: (Snip I just found a web site called appropriately enoughwww.6SN7.comwhich has loads of info on this tube. In the history section it states: (snip) Cheers Ian Ian, a great story... thanks, bookmarked. Glad I've got a small boxful... I must now sort them into variants! g Cheers, Roger Are you in the UK? I would like to buy a couple of genuine 6SN7 tubes so I can compare their performance with the 6CG7. Cheers Ian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ian, I am in the UK, I have some Sylvania 7N7s that are for all intents and purposes 6SN7s. I only have six and I am using four in my curent project so I would like them back but you can borrow them if you like. I have sockets aswell if you need them. The only difference I see in the data sheets is the disipation is the same as the basic 6SN7 2.5W (3.5W?) and the capacitances are way lower. I say 3.5W because a couple of sheets say max anode dis. per envelope as 7-7.5W and the anodes are a bit large for just 2.5W, I may be wrong. That's a really generous offer, Matt. Email me at ianbellATukfsnDOTcoDOTuk so we can sort out details. No rush as it is nearly Christmas and anyway my trusty Ferrograph RTS2 has just died - again - now needs a new FET in the millivoltmeter circuit. Cheers Ian I also have quite a few of the Pinnacle 6J5s that Allan Morgan likes. These are clearly re-branded Russian tubes but as Allan clearly demonstrates they measure very well. They are eactly the same as half a 6SN7. Matt. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
On 10 Dec, 00:19, Ian Bell wrote:
bigwig wrote: On 7 Dec, 09:26, Ian Bell wrote: Engineer wrote: On Nov 25, 3:35 pm, Ian Bell wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 24, 6:40 pm, Ian Bell wrote: (Snip I just found a web site called appropriately enoughwww.6SN7.comwhich has loads of info on this tube. In the history section it states: (snip) Cheers Ian Ian, a great story... thanks, bookmarked. *Glad I've got a small boxful... I must now sort them into variants! *g Cheers, Roger Are you in the UK? I would like to buy a couple of genuine 6SN7 tubes so I can compare their performance with the 6CG7. Cheers Ian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ian, * I am in the UK, I have some Sylvania 7N7s that are for all intents and purposes 6SN7s. I only have six and I am using four in my curent project so I would like them back but you can borrow them if you like. I have sockets aswell if you need them. The only difference I see in the data sheets is the disipation is the same as the basic 6SN7 2.5W (3.5W?) and the capacitances are way lower. I say 3.5W because a couple of sheets say max anode dis. per envelope as 7-7.5W and the anodes are a bit large for just 2.5W, I may be wrong. That's a really generous offer, Matt. Email me at ianbellATukfsnDOTcoDOTuk so we can sort out details. No rush as it is nearly Christmas and anyway my trusty Ferrograph RTS2 has just died - again - now needs a new FET in the millivoltmeter circuit. Cheers Ian * *I also have quite a few of the Pinnacle 6J5s that Allan Morgan likes. These are clearly re-branded Russian tubes but as Allan clearly demonstrates they measure very well. They are eactly the same as half a 6SN7. * * Matt.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - OK Ian, No probs I will mail you tomorrow, getting late and have to be the other side of Oxford by 8:30am in the morning. Matt. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
On 10 Dec, 00:19, Ian Bell wrote:
bigwig wrote: On 7 Dec, 09:26, Ian Bell wrote: Engineer wrote: On Nov 25, 3:35 pm, Ian Bell wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 24, 6:40 pm, Ian Bell wrote: (Snip I just found a web site called appropriately enoughwww.6SN7.comwhich has loads of info on this tube. In the history section it states: (snip) Cheers Ian Ian, a great story... thanks, bookmarked. *Glad I've got a small boxful... I must now sort them into variants! *g Cheers, Roger Are you in the UK? I would like to buy a couple of genuine 6SN7 tubes so I can compare their performance with the 6CG7. Cheers Ian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ian, * I am in the UK, I have some Sylvania 7N7s that are for all intents and purposes 6SN7s. I only have six and I am using four in my curent project so I would like them back but you can borrow them if you like. I have sockets aswell if you need them. The only difference I see in the data sheets is the disipation is the same as the basic 6SN7 2.5W (3.5W?) and the capacitances are way lower. I say 3.5W because a couple of sheets say max anode dis. per envelope as 7-7.5W and the anodes are a bit large for just 2.5W, I may be wrong. That's a really generous offer, Matt. Email me at ianbellATukfsnDOTcoDOTuk so we can sort out details. No rush as it is nearly Christmas and anyway my trusty Ferrograph RTS2 has just died - again - now needs a new FET in the millivoltmeter circuit. Cheers Ian * *I also have quite a few of the Pinnacle 6J5s that Allan Morgan likes. These are clearly re-branded Russian tubes but as Allan clearly demonstrates they measure very well. They are eactly the same as half a 6SN7. * * Matt.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Sorry, what is the FET in your Ferrograph I may have some?. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
bigwig wrote:
On 10 Dec, 00:19, Ian Bell wrote: bigwig wrote: On 7 Dec, 09:26, Ian Bell wrote: Engineer wrote: On Nov 25, 3:35 pm, Ian Bell wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 24, 6:40 pm, Ian Bell wrote: (Snip I just found a web site called appropriately enoughwww.6SN7.comwhich has loads of info on this tube. In the history section it states: (snip) Cheers Ian Ian, a great story... thanks, bookmarked. Glad I've got a small boxful... I must now sort them into variants! g Cheers, Roger Are you in the UK? I would like to buy a couple of genuine 6SN7 tubes so I can compare their performance with the 6CG7. Cheers Ian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ian, I am in the UK, I have some Sylvania 7N7s that are for all intents and purposes 6SN7s. I only have six and I am using four in my curent project so I would like them back but you can borrow them if you like. I have sockets aswell if you need them. The only difference I see in the data sheets is the disipation is the same as the basic 6SN7 2.5W (3.5W?) and the capacitances are way lower. I say 3.5W because a couple of sheets say max anode dis. per envelope as 7-7.5W and the anodes are a bit large for just 2.5W, I may be wrong. That's a really generous offer, Matt. Email me at ianbellATukfsnDOTcoDOTuk so we can sort out details. No rush as it is nearly Christmas and anyway my trusty Ferrograph RTS2 has just died - again - now needs a new FET in the millivoltmeter circuit. Cheers Ian I also have quite a few of the Pinnacle 6J5s that Allan Morgan likes. These are clearly re-branded Russian tubes but as Allan clearly demonstrates they measure very well. They are eactly the same as half a 6SN7. Matt.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Sorry, what is the FET in your Ferrograph I may have some?. It's a BF256S. Can't seem to find them anywhere. I discovered the BF254C is very similar so I ordered a few from Maplin. Cheers Ian |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
On 10 Dec, 09:07, Ian Bell wrote:
bigwig wrote: On 10 Dec, 00:19, Ian Bell wrote: bigwig wrote: On 7 Dec, 09:26, Ian Bell wrote: Engineer wrote: On Nov 25, 3:35 pm, Ian Bell wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 24, 6:40 pm, Ian Bell wrote: (Snip I just found a web site called appropriately enoughwww.6SN7.comwhich has loads of info on this tube. In the history section it states: (snip) Cheers Ian Ian, a great story... thanks, bookmarked. *Glad I've got a small boxful... I must now sort them into variants! *g Cheers, Roger Are you in the UK? I would like to buy a couple of genuine 6SN7 tubes so I can compare their performance with the 6CG7. Cheers Ian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ian, * I am in the UK, I have some Sylvania 7N7s that are for all intents and purposes 6SN7s. I only have six and I am using four in my curent project so I would like them back but you can borrow them if you like.. I have sockets aswell if you need them. The only difference I see in the data sheets is the disipation is the same as the basic 6SN7 2.5W (3.5W?) and the capacitances are way lower. I say 3.5W because a couple of sheets say max anode dis. per envelope as 7-7.5W and the anodes are a bit large for just 2.5W, I may be wrong. That's a really generous offer, Matt. Email me at ianbellATukfsnDOTcoDOTuk so we can sort out details. No rush as it is nearly Christmas and anyway my trusty Ferrograph RTS2 has just died - again - now needs a new FET in the millivoltmeter circuit. Cheers Ian * *I also have quite a few of the Pinnacle 6J5s that Allan Morgan likes. These are clearly re-branded Russian tubes but as Allan clearly demonstrates they measure very well. They are eactly the same as half a 6SN7. * * Matt.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Sorry, what is the FET in your Ferrograph I may have some?. It's a BF256S. Can't seem to find them anywhere. I discovered the BF254C is very similar so I ordered a few from Maplin. Cheers Ian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ian, I have tried to emil you but it was sent back I guess I didnt decode your address properly. I cant see how it looks alright to me. Maybe it was sent back by UKFSN, it says delay in the message title I got back. Matt |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
On Dec 7, 4:26*am, Ian Bell wrote:
Engineer wrote: On Nov 25, 3:35 pm, Ian Bell wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 24, 6:40 pm, Ian Bell wrote: (Snip I just found a web site called appropriately enoughwww.6SN7.comwhich has loads of info on this tube. In the history section it states: (snip) Cheers Ian Ian, a great story... thanks, bookmarked. *Glad I've got a small boxful... I must now sort them into variants! *g Cheers, Roger Are you in the UK? I would like to buy a couple of genuine 6SN7 tubes so I can compare their performance with the 6CG7. Cheers Ian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Sheesh, guy! How many do you need? I have at least a dozen-or-more and would be glad to drop a few in a box for you, gratis. Even shipping to your side of the pond can't be all that much. I am not going to take the trouble of matching dual-triodes for you, but I can mark their GM on each side & plate currents for you at least as based on a Hickok tester. Sorry it took me three days to notice this. Petrer Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
bigwig wrote:
On 10 Dec, 09:07, Ian Bell wrote: bigwig wrote: On 10 Dec, 00:19, Ian Bell wrote: bigwig wrote: On 7 Dec, 09:26, Ian Bell wrote: Engineer wrote: On Nov 25, 3:35 pm, Ian Bell wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 24, 6:40 pm, Ian Bell wrote: (Snip I just found a web site called appropriately enoughwww.6SN7.comwhich has loads of info on this tube. In the history section it states: (snip) Cheers Ian Ian, a great story... thanks, bookmarked. Glad I've got a small boxful... I must now sort them into variants! g Cheers, Roger Are you in the UK? I would like to buy a couple of genuine 6SN7 tubes so I can compare their performance with the 6CG7. Cheers Ian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ian, I am in the UK, I have some Sylvania 7N7s that are for all intents and purposes 6SN7s. I only have six and I am using four in my curent project so I would like them back but you can borrow them if you like. I have sockets aswell if you need them. The only difference I see in the data sheets is the disipation is the same as the basic 6SN7 2.5W (3.5W?) and the capacitances are way lower. I say 3.5W because a couple of sheets say max anode dis. per envelope as 7-7.5W and the anodes are a bit large for just 2.5W, I may be wrong. That's a really generous offer, Matt. Email me at ianbellATukfsnDOTcoDOTuk so we can sort out details. No rush as it is nearly Christmas and anyway my trusty Ferrograph RTS2 has just died - again - now needs a new FET in the millivoltmeter circuit. Cheers Ian I also have quite a few of the Pinnacle 6J5s that Allan Morgan likes. These are clearly re-branded Russian tubes but as Allan clearly demonstrates they measure very well. They are eactly the same as half a 6SN7. Matt.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Sorry, what is the FET in your Ferrograph I may have some?. It's a BF256S. Can't seem to find them anywhere. I discovered the BF254C is very similar so I ordered a few from Maplin. Cheers Ian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ian, I have tried to emil you but it was sent back I guess I didnt decode your address properly. I cant see how it looks alright to me. Maybe it was sent back by UKFSN, it says delay in the message title I got back. Matt No, it's my fault, I got my owm email address wrong!! It should be: ianbellATukfsnDOTorg Don't know what made me put.co.uk Cheers Ian |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
6SN7=6CG7?=?6FQ7
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:26 am, Ian Bell wrote: Engineer wrote: On Nov 25, 3:35 pm, Ian Bell wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 24, 6:40 pm, Ian Bell wrote: (Snip I just found a web site called appropriately enoughwww.6SN7.comwhich has loads of info on this tube. In the history section it states: (snip) Cheers Ian Ian, a great story... thanks, bookmarked. Glad I've got a small boxful... I must now sort them into variants! g Cheers, Roger Are you in the UK? I would like to buy a couple of genuine 6SN7 tubes so I can compare their performance with the 6CG7. Cheers Ian- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Sheesh, guy! How many do you need? I have at least a dozen-or-more and would be glad to drop a few in a box for you, gratis. Even shipping to your side of the pond can't be all that much. I am not going to take the trouble of matching dual-triodes for you, but I can mark their GM on each side & plate currents for you at least as based on a Hickok tester. Sorry it took me three days to notice this. Wow, there are times when this is an incredibly friendly group. I am overwhelmed by your generosity. Yes please, just a couple are all I need. Matching is not an issue, I want to compare their performance in a mu follower with that achieved by the 6CG7 tubes I have. Drop me an email at ianbellATukfsnDOTorg and I'll send you my snail mail address. If you have a paypal account I would be happy to cover shipping costs. Once again, many thanks for your generosity. Cheers Ian Petrer Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
6CG7/6FQ7 Not In Tube Lore? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FA: 2 NOS RCA 6CG7 6FQ7 Clear Top Tubes | Marketplace | |||
6CG7 input tubes OK for Llano Trinity Amp? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Marantz 8B 6cg7 and ac balance | Vacuum Tubes | |||
When replacing tubes (6CG7) ? | Vacuum Tubes |