[mike s]

On Thursday, May 19, 2011 1:52:19 AM UTC+1, Patrick Turner wrote:
On May 18, 7:54*pm, mike s wrote:
I have a couple of output transformers with separate feedback windings, and was hoping that one might be a suitable replacement for the failed transformer in the *RCA 82 C4 Monitor Amplifier. *Schematic herehttp://www..waltzingbear.com/Schematics/RCA/BA-4C.htm

However it uses a high impedance winding *(1/6th of primary anode-anode), whereas the transformers I have both use low impedance windings, about 1:100. *I have a schematic for a British circuit by P J Baxandall *- last on this page *http://mike.wepoco.com/Home/retro-ge...-wire...*which places the feedback winding in series with the input pentode cathode, rather than the high impedance potential divider used in the RCA circuit. *Baxandall claimed to be using a transformer design patented by the BBC (Mayo, Tanner, Ellis). *I've seen the same arrangement used in a Marconi push-pull amplifier.

I reckon I'm going to have to adopt the Baxandall arrangement, *but would be interested to learn what others think of these circuits. *Presumably it was amplifiers like this that inspired the rather quirky Quad 2 extra feedback to the output valves.http://www.drtube.com/schematics/quad/quad-22.gif

Michael

You won't easily find any "drop in" new replacement OPT which could
be used in the the circuits by RCA, Peter Baxandall, or Peter Walker
of Quad.

Quirky old stuff is "my thing", so I stash away old transformers and the like. It does seem however that UK designers took a different tack when designing amps/transformers for this style of feedback. So the vintage British transformers I have won't simply "drop in". I'm OK with that.


All these old circuits have serious shortcomings which are only made
worse when someone tries to use an unsuitable OPT at home and they do
not understand how NOT to build an oscillator while trying to build an
amplifier.


Hopefully whatever I pick won't be unsuitable, but is going to need some changes. Perhaps in the end the amount of NFB will need to be reduced.

You say you "have a couple of OPT" without saying just exactly what
their specification might be. To know what you are doing, you need to
know every single bit of information which describes each tranny
fully. You say your OPT in your RCA monitot amp has failed, so we
assume it has an open primary or shorted turns.

One half of the primary has failed, so the remaining half allows me to establish the ratios, and resistance, of all windings. So I can't use it - as is, but can learn enough about it to know what's needed.

BREAKING NEWS - I've managed to un-pot it, so will post photos. I might even be able to repair it. Which would be nice.


The Hammond 1650P OPT with 6k6 to 4, 8, 16 ohms will be OK with 6L6,
807, 1622 etc, but you will need to addapt the Hammond OPT to the RCA
circuit you already seem to have.

The RCA circuit has NFB loop with R24, 24k, and R8, 2k7, and we don't
know how much voltage is generated at the NFB winding across OPT
terminals 1 to 3.

With the turns ratio I can figure that out, and knowing that with the 24k resistor it is unloaded, which I believe is the design principle of these amps - pure voltage feedback, with close to zero lag.

The lazy dumb ****wits at RCA ommitted to provide
us with a more clearly drawn schematic with all the working signal
voltages for all electrodes and transformer windings. My guess is that

It would have been nice to have the voltages, that's for sure. There are copies of the manual for these amps on the WWW so I might find more info.

OPT terminal 3 produces a NFB voltage of about 50Vrms to be able to
supply a high enough FB voltage at V3 6SN7 cathode, maybe 5Vrms, so
that the amount of NFB is at least 12dB.

I'll let you know when I've done the calcs, but these amps were claimed to have very low noise, so high NFB is to be expected.


A normal OPT with no FB winding and just speaker secondaries could be
used in the RCA circuit but you'd have to re-arrange the FB network to
V3 cathode with R24 being a lower value. This will affect the way V3
cathode is biased; if R24 is made smaller it reduces the total value
of Rk. Fso if R24 = 4k7, the R8 may need to be increased to 3k3 to
give the equivalent of what is in the schematic, ie, 2k7 // 24k for
the dc cathode current, ie, about 2k2.

I'd never ever try Baxandall's circuit, and I'm no great fan of Quad,
or ANY circuit which employs a "paraphase" input pair or uses the
output of one triode to drive another as done on the RCA circuit. It
is always better to employ a LONG TAIL PAIR as in many of my amplifier
schematics which you may inspect at my website at http://www.turneraudio.com.au

It's interesting that RCA and the BBC in the UK adopted these types of amplifier. Clearly broadcast engineers liked them. I wonder why?

I've always used NFB applied to a cathode of SE triode input stage
ahead of an LTP driver stage and this is better because the distortion
of the input tube is included in the FB and thus reduced along with
all following stages in the loop. The input tube works at low signal
levels so second order products are minimal. The Williamson, Leak and
Radford circuits emboby such principles as I do, but to make the amp
unconditionally stable regardless of load reactance will challenge
your abilities sorely unless you have a full understanding of what you
are doing.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On May 20, 2:14*am, mike s wrote:
On Thursday, May 19, 2011 1:52:19 AM UTC+1, Patrick Turner wrote:
On May 18, 7:54*pm, mike s wrote:
I have a couple of output transformers with separate feedback windings, and was hoping that one might be a suitable replacement for the failed transformer in the *RCA 82 C4 Monitor Amplifier. *Schematic herehttp://www.waltzingbear.com/Schematics/RCA/BA-4C.htm

However it uses a high impedance winding *(1/6th of primary anode-anode), whereas the transformers I have both use low impedance windings, about 1:100. *I have a schematic for a British circuit by P J Baxandall *- last on this page *http://mike.wepoco.com/Home/retro-ge...r-wire...which places the feedback winding in series with the input pentode cathode, rather than the high impedance potential divider used in the RCA circuit. *Baxandall claimed to be using a transformer design patented by the BBC (Mayo, Tanner, Ellis). *I've seen the same arrangement used in a Marconi push-pull amplifier.

I reckon I'm going to have to adopt the Baxandall arrangement, *but would be interested to learn what others think of these circuits. *Presumably it was amplifiers like this that inspired the rather quirky Quad 2 extra feedback to the output valves.http://www.drtube.com/schematics/quad/quad-22.gif

Michael

You won't easily find any "drop in" new replacement OPT *which could
be used in the the circuits by RCA, Peter Baxandall, or Peter Walker
of Quad.

Quirky old stuff is "my thing", so I stash away old transformers and the like. It does seem however that UK designers took a different tack when designing amps/transformers for this style of feedback. *So the vintage British transformers I have won't simply "drop in". *I'm OK with that. *

There have been an amazing number of different amps designed by guys
who yearned to be unique. "Yearning For Uniqueness" would have to an
extremely vain pre-occupation of anyone's mind when we consider the
**** of one man smells almost identically to the **** of the next man
along. We all like redheads, brunnettes, and blondes, and what we do
with them is remarkably similar, ie, the divorce rate in the US is
about the same as in Britain.

But the implementation of any one amplifier idea is often just as
important as the idea itself. Ultralinear was the favourite in the US,
and so was global NFB around 3 gain stages with FB froma speaker
winding to cathode of V1. The Pomms showed how in the Williamson which
was a PP triode thinge which quickly became UL if you wanted it to be
for more power. The americans were fond of power, and their cars were
bigger, waistlines longer, houses bigger and government more
influential after WW2. Everything in the USA had to be bigger
brighter, louder, et all while in Deare Olde England which was savaged
by WW2 things remained GRIM with housing, rates of pay, and standard
of living for far longer than in the US after WW2. With smaller houses
and smaller budgets, only the rich in the UK could buy Quad-II amps
with the luxury of powerful octal based tubes such as KT66. KT88 had
to wait until 1957, 12 years after WW2. It wasa time when interest in
hi-fi was seen by many as vain, vapid, absurd, and eccentric. In my
observations of audiophiles, I can see that not much has changed.


All these old circuits have serious shortcomings which are only made
worse when someone tries to use an unsuitable OPT at home and they do
not understand how NOT to build an oscillator while trying to build an
amplifier.

Hopefully whatever I pick won't be unsuitable, *but is going to need some changes. *Perhaps in the end the amount of NFB will need to be reduced..

The use of NFB from a dedicated NFB winding which uses fine wire
because there is little current was something major makers never
adopted. Baxandal and Williamson were the most ignored blokes of 1950.
People wanted SIMPLE CHEAP solutions, and these two boffins offered
neither cheap nor simple, and insisted on going the extra country mile
to fetch a bucket full of real hi-fi. Baxandall was brilliant, and his
analysis of the Quad ESL57 requirements of the step up trannies shows
how damn dumb most consequent people were about basic audio LCR ideas.
And many online DIY ppl who have tried to build ESL show how dumb they
continue to be.

Baxandall's amp isn't real bad, but the first input pentode must
produce a voltage large enough to drive one 6L6 grid in beam tetrode
mode with fixed Eg2. The other input pentode operates as an inverting
anode follower with unity gain, but any THD generated in V1 is passed
on to be reproduced in V2. In effect, driver amp distortion is double
that of a single tube, and this defect also occurs in any amp using a
paraphase driver. The Williamson is FAR BETTER amp design than
anything with two pentode input tubes. But in 1950, many designers had
a real bad case of pentoditis, the affliction where blokes chose a
pentode instead of two low µ triodes which give much less THD and
IMD.


You say you "have a couple of OPT" without saying just exactly what
their specification might be. To know what you are doing, you need to
know every single bit of information which describes each tranny
fully. You say your OPT in your RCA monitot amp has failed, so we
assume it has an open primary or shorted turns.

One half of the primary has failed, *so the remaining half allows me to establish the ratios, and resistance, of all windings. *So I can't use it - as is, but can learn enough about it to know what's needed.

Many old OPT have several if not many things missing, which is why I
am not delighted by what I find in old 1950s amps. Missing is enough
primary turns, enough interleaving, thick enough primary wire, decent
insulation with low dielectric constant, enough iron, and low winding
losses. Once you know what could have been done and wasn't done in
1950 just so the boss could buy a decent car, then fascination tends
to fade about OLD JUNK.



BREAKING NEWS - *I've managed to un-pot it, so will post photos. *I might even be able to repair it. *Which would be nice.

Yeah, maube the break is accessible, but most OPTs fuse a winding
somewhere deep inside where windings get hot because someone forgot to
build the amp so it shuts down WHEN an OP tube endures bias failure.



The Hammond 1650P OPT with 6k6 to 4, 8, 16 ohms will be OK with 6L6,
807, 1622 etc, but you will need to addapt the Hammond OPT to the RCA
circuit you already seem to have.

The RCA circuit has NFB loop with R24, 24k, and R8, 2k7, and we don't
know how much voltage is generated at the NFB winding across OPT
terminals 1 to 3.

With the turns ratio I can figure that out, and knowing that with the 24k resistor it is unloaded, which I believe is the design principle of these amps - pure voltage feedback, with close to zero lag.

There will be phase shift depending on where the NFB winding is
located relative to other windings. But if the NFB winding is tightly
coupled to the primary, then possibly the phase shift of the secondary
is avoided, especially if the sec load is a capacitance. So with a FB
winding the amp should be easier to make unconditionally stable with
NFB; no attempt is being made to correct for effects of high lekage
inductance between P and speaker windings. Unless you know the real
sequence and placement of all windings, you cannot be sure the NFB
winding will work any better than just taking NFB from speaker sec
(like everyone else) and to the cathode of V1.



The lazy dumb ****wits at RCA ommitted to provide
us with a more clearly drawn schematic with all the working signal
voltages for all electrodes and transformer windings. My guess is that

It would have been nice to have the voltages, that's for sure. *There are copies of the manual for these amps on the WWW so I might find more info.. *

The manuals would help, but you can calculate all the loads and
voltage gains based on 2 6L6 in PP class AB for a max of about 30W. Do
your loadline analysis, and all shall be revealed. I guess about 12dB
of NFB is applied, and that isn't much, and not enough, IMHO,
but if you need about 1.5Vrms applied to an input pentode without NFB
for clipping, then with 20dB NFB FB there will be 15V of input.
The better way to do the business is to arrange the two input pentodes
as a true LTP with CCS common cathode sink. This meant a negative
supply and another pentode in 1955, so it was never done because my
dad's generation were too cashed strapped raising the baby boomer
generation, and they were parsimonious about any expenditure.

But now we'd just use a bjt, but even with a large value R taken to
-400V rails which are easy to make with Si diodes is OK. In 1955,
there were no Si diodes. Freedom of circuit design was severely
curtailed. But when solid state came along, everything changed. Sure
they got freedom, and liberation from guilt about never quite ever
building decent OPTs, but early SS was a horror story, and when
dumper bins filled with ****ed tube amps by 1962, ppl were throwing
the baby out with the bath water.

OPT terminal 3 produces a NFB voltage of about 50Vrms to be able to
supply a high enough FB voltage at V3 6SN7 cathode, maybe 5Vrms, so
that the amount of NFB is at least 12dB.

I'll let you know when I've done the calcs, but these amps were claimed to have very low noise, so high NFB is to be expected.

I've made 55W SE amps with extremely low noise despite no use of loop
NFB. My SE55 with 2 x 845 gave noise = 0.25mV with only 10dB global
NFB. That's -98dB no weighting, referred to clip level. But noise
should be low without regard to SNR, because if you have horn speakers
you still want no audible hum from across the room, ie, less than
0.5mV. Low noise is easily achieved by using remote power supplies and
dc to all input tube heaters, and to cathodes of all OP DHT, if used.

The Williamson was renowned for being quiet. It was recommended that a
remote PSU be used. When stero came along, ppl hated the expense of
yet another two chassis with hot things on it. By then it was 1960,
and they hated replacing 10 year old KT66, so the mono system got
replaced by cool running transistor junk.

A few makers kept the faith after 1960 and continued making tube amps,
and many of these dreary things linger on, often with few saving
graces.


A normal OPT with no FB winding and just speaker secondaries could be
used in the RCA circuit but you'd have to re-arrange the FB network to
V3 cathode with R24 being a lower value. This will affect the way V3
cathode is biased; if R24 is made smaller it reduces the total value
of Rk. Fso if R24 = 4k7, the R8 may need to be increased to 3k3 to
give the equivalent of what is in the schematic, ie, 2k7 // 24k for
the dc cathode current, ie, about 2k2.

I'd never ever try Baxandall's circuit, and I'm no great fan of Quad,
or ANY circuit which employs a "paraphase" input pair or uses the
output of one triode to drive another as done on the RCA circuit. It
is always better to employ a LONG TAIL PAIR as in many of my amplifier
schematics which you may inspect at my website athttp://www.turneraudio..com.au

It's interesting that RCA and the BBC in the UK adopted these types of amplifier. *Clearly broadcast engineers liked them. *I wonder why?

But the BBC liked Quad-II and Leak and Radfords also, and didn't
really favour any quirky damn amp.

The engineers didn't have much of a say - what they got was what the
accountants authorised. Engineers were a damn pest, always wanting
bucket fulls of cash for "interesting solutions", eg, we need a 50W
amp. Nope, youse can make do with a 20W amp.

Patrick Turner.






I've always used NFB applied to a cathode of SE triode input stage
ahead of an LTP driver stage and this is better because the distortion
of the input tube is included in the FB and *thus reduced along with
all following stages in the loop. The input tube works at low signal
levels so second order products are minimal. The Williamson, Leak and
Radford circuits emboby such principles as I do, but to make the amp
unconditionally stable regardless of load reactance will challenge
your abilities sorely unless you have a full understanding of what you
are doing.

Patrick Turner.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Big Bad Bob]

On 05/20/11 03:22, Patrick Turner so wittily quipped:
Baxandall's amp isn't real bad, but the first input pentode must
produce a voltage large enough to drive one 6L6 grid in beam tetrode
mode with fixed Eg2. The other input pentode operates as an inverting
anode follower with unity gain, but any THD generated in V1 is passed
on to be reproduced in V2. In effect, driver amp distortion is double
that of a single tube, and this defect also occurs in any amp using a
paraphase driver.

I hadn't heard the term 'paraphase' until you mentioned it, so I did a
bit of online research, found out that I've seen things like that before
and I never liked it done 'that way', but yeah, using PENTODES just
makes everything worse for distortion and potential imbalance. Relying
on the circuit gain characteristics of a tube for your design, or
requiring a balance adjustment to make it work, is just silly. As for
me, I prefer the use of a pair of triodes as a direct coupled
'cathodyne' setup (careful biasing and component choices gives you
pretty good results), though a 'long tail pair with a constant current
on the cathodes' (something you had in one of your amps I think) would
be a good alternative (some additional research suggests the latter
might actually work better in an overdriven guitar amp). The long tail
pair has slight imbalance if you don't get close to a constant current
on the cathode, so the simpler 'cathodyne' splitter gives you better
balance with fewer parts (though it may require series resistors for
downstream grids in case they draw current during overdrive on guitar amps).

anyway, I found a couple of interesting web sites that describe the
various types of phase splitters (among other things)

http://www.freewebs.com/valvewizard/index.html (see index on the left)

also more here

http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/audio/split.htm


But in 1950, many designers had a real bad case of pentoditis,
the affliction where blokes chose a pentode instead of two low µ
triodes which give much less THD and IMD.

there's a general move to create something 'patentable' so that you have
a portfolio of intellectual property, regardless of whether or not it is
actually better. But in cases where another guy's patent steps on your
design, it might be necessary to go a slightly inferior route to avoid
paying royalties. By now all of those patents are expired.


You say you "have a couple of OPT" without saying just exactly what
their specification might be. To know what you are doing, you need to
know every single bit of information which describes each tranny
fully. You say your OPT in your RCA monitot amp has failed, so we
assume it has an open primary or shorted turns.

One half of the primary has failed, so the remaining half allows me to establish the ratios, and resistance, of all windings. So I can't use it - as is, but can learn enough about it to know what's needed.

Many old OPT have several if not many things missing, which is why I
am not delighted by what I find in old 1950s amps. Missing is enough
primary turns, enough interleaving, thick enough primary wire, decent
insulation with low dielectric constant, enough iron, and low winding
losses. Once you know what could have been done and wasn't done in
1950 just so the boss could buy a decent car, then fascination tends
to fade about OLD JUNK.

old junk indeed. reminds me of those 'low iron' class 'A' transformers
that I swapped the phase on (both sides of course) and saw output where
none was before, apparently due to hysteresis problems, on a late 50's
or early 1960's console stereo system. Funny, though, 2W per channel
just wasn't enough so I bought an old 15W/channel (tube) stereo amp in a
caged chassis and just wired it up inside the cabinet.

/me wonders if you could use a 70V 'line' output as the NFB source with
a few mods to the circuit.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Big Bad Bob wrote:

On 05/20/11 03:22, Patrick Turner so wittily quipped:
Baxandall's amp isn't real bad, but the first input pentode must
produce a voltage large enough to drive one 6L6 grid in beam tetrode
mode with fixed Eg2. The other input pentode operates as an inverting
anode follower with unity gain, but any THD generated in V1 is passed
on to be reproduced in V2. In effect, driver amp distortion is double
that of a single tube, and this defect also occurs in any amp using a
paraphase driver.

I hadn't heard the term 'paraphase' until you mentioned it, so I did a
bit of online research, found out that I've seen things like that before
and I never liked it done 'that way', but yeah, using PENTODES just
makes everything worse for distortion and potential imbalance. Relying
on the circuit gain characteristics of a tube for your design, or
requiring a balance adjustment to make it work, is just silly.

I prefer the floating paraphase phase inverter as it has many advantages over
other forms of phase inverter. If the inverter tube has sufficient gain,
balance is excellent and no balance adjustment is necessary.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Patrick Turner]

On May 21, 10:07*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*Big Bad Bob wrote:

On 05/20/11 03:22, Patrick Turner so wittily quipped:
Baxandall's amp isn't real bad, but the first input pentode must
produce a voltage large enough to drive one 6L6 grid in beam tetrode
mode with fixed Eg2. The other input pentode operates as an inverting
anode follower with unity gain, but any THD generated in V1 is passed
on to be reproduced in V2. In effect, driver amp distortion is double
that of a single tube, and this defect also occurs in any amp using a
paraphase driver.

I hadn't heard the term 'paraphase' until you mentioned it, so I did a
bit of online research, found out that I've seen things like that before
and I never liked it done 'that way', but yeah, using PENTODES just
makes everything worse for distortion and potential imbalance. *Relying
on the circuit gain characteristics of a tube for your design, or
requiring a balance adjustment to make it work, is just silly.

I prefer the floating paraphase phase inverter as it has many advantages over
other forms of phase inverter. *If the inverter tube has sufficient gain,
balance is excellent and no balance adjustment is necessary.

I've seen several versions of floating paraphase, usually you need to
have output tube grids biased at 0Vdc so that the feed from R divider
to one input tube grid is also at 0Vdc like the V1 tube. Using fixed
bias with adjust pots for the two output tubes complicates the design
unecessarily. But I've always found them slow, ie, their bandwidth is
lower than other methods so amp stabilization at HF for unconditional
stability even with a pure 0.22 uF load is more difficult to achieve,
so I never ever have used paraphase in any amp I've built. Many other
methods are better.

The best natural balance is achieved with a LTP in which the tubes on
each side do not need to be matched, and the drive to each OP tube is
dependant on the equality of the resistance loads on the two tubes of
the LTP. 1% metal film resistors have been routinely available for
many years now and they don't change value like the crappy old carbon
composition types.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On May 20, 11:54*pm, Big Bad Bob BigBadBob-at-mrp3-
wrote:
On 05/20/11 03:22, Patrick Turner so wittily quipped:

Baxandall's amp isn't real bad, but the first input pentode must
produce a voltage large enough to drive one 6L6 grid in beam tetrode
mode with fixed Eg2. The other input pentode operates as an inverting
anode follower with unity gain, but any THD generated in V1 is passed
on to be reproduced in V2. In effect, driver amp distortion is double
that of a single tube, and this defect also occurs in any amp using a
paraphase driver.

I hadn't heard the term 'paraphase' until you mentioned it, so I did a
bit of online research, found out that I've seen things like that before
and I never liked it done 'that way', but yeah, using PENTODES just
makes everything worse for distortion and potential imbalance. *Relying
on the circuit gain characteristics of a tube for your design, or
requiring a balance adjustment to make it work, is just silly. *As for
me, I prefer the use of a pair of triodes as a direct coupled
'cathodyne' setup (careful biasing and component choices gives you
pretty good results), though a 'long tail pair with a constant current
on the cathodes' (something you had in one of your amps I think) would
be a good alternative (some additional research suggests the latter
might actually work better in an overdriven guitar amp). *The long tail
pair has slight imbalance if you don't get close to a constant current
on the cathode, so the simpler 'cathodyne' splitter gives you better
balance with fewer parts (though it may require series resistors for
downstream grids in case they draw current during overdrive on guitar amps).

anyway, I found a couple of interesting web sites that describe the
various types of phase splitters (among other things)

Quad-II used a kind of floating paraphase. Nobody much understands
exactly how it works but fact is that the output of one EF86 is
reduced
by resistance divider and fed to the grid of another EF86 and both
thus have a stage which effectively has 6dB of local positive FB. Both
EF86 have to make up to about 40Vrms for each KT66 grid, ( depending
on the load ). I've tried using KT88 in triode with fixed bias in Quad-
II with
an all triode input stage using low µ SE input and LTP driver with CCS
cathode tail. There is definately less high order HD products but the
measurements don't get dramatically better than the original Quad-II.
I've also tried using EF86 set up as a true LTP rather than paraphase
and methinks all things that I have tried are better measuring and
sounding than anything concocted for a quid by Peter Walker, ( God luv
'im ).
See http://www.turneraudio.com.au/quad2powerampmods.htm

GE published a book giving 17 amps from 5W to 1,100W and in it they
recommended both Williamson and paraphase circuits. The best paraphase
circuits are done using low µ triodes with a following balanced amp so
that the paraphasing is done at low signal levels where the positive
FB doesn't increase HD very much because it is so low to begin with.


there's a general move to create something 'patentable' so that you have
a portfolio of intellectual property, regardless of whether or not it is
actually better. *But in cases where another guy's patent steps on your
design, it might be necessary to go a slightly inferior route to avoid
paying royalties. *By now all of those patents are expired.


Indeed.

Patrick Turner.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:


Quad-II used a kind of floating paraphase. Nobody much understands
exactly how it works but fact is that the output of one EF86 is
reduced
by resistance divider and fed to the grid of another EF86 and both
thus have a stage which effectively has 6dB of local positive FB. Both
EF86 have to make up to about 40Vrms for each KT66 grid, ( depending
on the load ).

It's not really that hard to figure out how it works, a lot of the quirkiness is
due to the acrobatics needed to apply negative feedback to the common cathode of
the voltage amplifier and phase splitter. This was probably a bean counter
thing to eliminate a couple of electrolytic capacitors.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Patrick Turner]

On May 23, 5:38*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*Patrick Turner wrote:



Quad-II used a kind of floating paraphase. Nobody much understands
exactly how it works but fact is that the output of one EF86 is
reduced
by resistance divider and fed to the grid of another EF86 and both
thus have a stage which effectively has 6dB of local positive FB. Both
EF86 have to make up to about 40Vrms for each KT66 grid, ( depending
on the load ).

It's not really that hard to figure out how it works, a lot of the quirkiness is
due to the acrobatics needed to apply negative feedback to the common cathode of
the voltage amplifier and phase splitter. *This was probably a bean counter
thing to eliminate a couple of electrolytic capacitors.

The solution to the problem of low open loop gain suited bean counters
at Quad. But if you make the two EF86 behave as a real LTP with common
cathode R to -400Vdc, or a CCS, and without the mild 6dB PFB boost of
the paraphase inverter principle used, then the differential gain is
halved and if the same amount of NFB was applied globally, you'd need
2.8Vrms for clipping power instead of only 1.4Vrms. One solution is to
use 6BX6 as input tubes with Ia in each at nearly 2mA and then the gm
rises well above what it is in EF86 and by carefully juggling the load
values and biasing R to OP tubes which would better be EL34 with more
gain than KT66, then you get increased open loop gain without the
paraphase connection and better stability etc, and the input pair may
be set up as a true LTP.

I've also used KT88 and KT90 in Quad-II.

Sure anyone may work out ther Quad circuit workings. But I've rarely
ever met that anyone.

Patrick Turner.

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Bret Ludwig[_2_]]

GE published a book giving 17 amps from 5W to 1,100W and in it they
recommended both Williamson and paraphase circuits. The best paraphase
circuits are done using low µ triodes with a following balanced amp so
that the paraphasing is done at low signal levels where the positive
FB doesn't increase HD very much because it is so low to begin with.

GEC, not GE. BIG difference.

http://www.tubebooks.org/Books/GEC_approach.pdf

[Patrick Turner]

On May 30, 9:44*am, Bret Ludwig wrote:
GE published a book giving 17 amps from 5W to 1,100W and in it they
recommended both Williamson and paraphase circuits. The best paraphase
circuits are done using low µ triodes with a following balanced amp so
that the paraphasing is done at low signal levels where the positive
FB doesn't increase HD very much because it is so low to begin with.

*GEC, not GE. BIG difference.

http://www.tubebooks.org/Books/GEC_approach.pdf

Indeed. Everyone should have a copy of the GEC book.

Patrick Turner.

[Bret Ludwig[_2_]]

there's a general move to create something 'patentable' so that you have
a portfolio of intellectual property, regardless of whether or not it is
actually better. *But in cases where another guy's patent steps on your
design, it might be necessary to go a slightly inferior route to avoid
paying royalties. *By now all of those patents are expired.

None the less no one makes a true McIntosh circuit or transformer,
despite the superiority of the basic circuit and the transformer
design.

[Big Bad Bob]

On 05/20/11 19:21, flipper so wittily quipped:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 06:54:32 -0700, Big Bad Bob
wrote:

On 05/20/11 03:22, Patrick Turner so wittily quipped:
Baxandall's amp isn't real bad, but the first input pentode must
produce a voltage large enough to drive one 6L6 grid in beam tetrode
mode with fixed Eg2. The other input pentode operates as an inverting
anode follower with unity gain, but any THD generated in V1 is passed
on to be reproduced in V2. In effect, driver amp distortion is double
that of a single tube, and this defect also occurs in any amp using a
paraphase driver.

I hadn't heard the term 'paraphase' until you mentioned it, so I did a
bit of online research, found out that I've seen things like that before
and I never liked it done 'that way', but yeah, using PENTODES just
makes everything worse for distortion and potential imbalance. Relying
on the circuit gain characteristics of a tube for your design, or
requiring a balance adjustment to make it work, is just silly.

Yes, well, the original Williamson called for a balance control on the
separate triode voltage amps because their gain is what it is. The
Williamson looks balanced but unless the triodes are identical, fat
chance, it isn't. (He later decided GNFB was enough to not need the
balance pot).

The Baxandall is a floating paraphase, which uses negative feedback.

Look at it again. The second pentode is driven by the difference of
the two signal paths, the two 470k summing 'sense' resistors, and is
not operating open loop like the Williamson voltage amp triodes are.

I used a similar floating paraphase on my "Batman" battery guitar amp
but used triodes and since they were low gain I 'predisposed' the
balance to nominal, and let the feedback work around that, but with
pentodes you have lots of gain for NFB around the phase splitter.

curious, which of these designs gives you the best overall gain,
transient response, overdrive characteristics, and lowest cost (or 'part
count')? Down side for cathodyne is that you have to make sure that the
Rp-Rk never drops below around 50V or so (depending on the tube) in the
worst case voltage swing. Alternative is to put a 2nd set of triodes
between the splitter and the output tubes, but not sure if that adds
potential imbalance or not (you'd have to match more parts again). At
that point I'd do the 'long tail' thing and match the Rp's, and use a
constant current source.

[Patrick Turner]

On May 21, 7:03*pm, Big Bad Bob BigBadBob-at-mrp3-
wrote:
On 05/20/11 19:21, flipper so wittily quipped:





On Fri, 20 May 2011 06:54:32 -0700, Big Bad Bob
*wrote:

On 05/20/11 03:22, Patrick Turner so wittily quipped:
Baxandall's amp isn't real bad, but the first input pentode must
produce a voltage large enough to drive one 6L6 grid in beam tetrode
mode with fixed Eg2. The other input pentode operates as an inverting
anode follower with unity gain, but any THD generated in V1 is passed
on to be reproduced in V2. In effect, driver amp distortion is double
that of a single tube, and this defect also occurs in any amp using a
paraphase driver.

I hadn't heard the term 'paraphase' until you mentioned it, so I did a
bit of online research, found out that I've seen things like that before
and I never liked it done 'that way', but yeah, using PENTODES just
makes everything worse for distortion and potential imbalance. *Relying
on the circuit gain characteristics of a tube for your design, or
requiring a balance adjustment to make it work, is just silly.

Yes, well, the original Williamson called for a balance control on the
separate triode voltage amps because their gain is what it is. The
Williamson looks balanced but unless the triodes are identical, fat
chance, it isn't. (He later decided GNFB was enough to not need the
balance pot).

The Baxandall is a floating paraphase, which uses negative feedback.

Look at it again. The second pentode is driven by the difference of
the two signal paths, the two 470k summing 'sense' resistors, and is
not operating open loop like the Williamson voltage amp triodes are.
I used a similar floating paraphase on my "Batman" battery guitar amp
but used triodes and since they were low gain I 'predisposed' the
balance to nominal, and let the feedback work around that, but with
pentodes you have lots of gain for NFB around the phase splitter.

curious, which of these designs gives you the best overall gain,
transient response, overdrive characteristics, and lowest cost (or 'part
count')? *Down side for cathodyne is that you have to make sure that the
Rp-Rk never drops below around 50V or so (depending on the tube) in the
worst case voltage swing. *Alternative is to put a 2nd set of triodes
between the splitter and the output tubes, but not sure if that adds
potential imbalance or not (you'd have to match more parts again). *At
that point I'd do the 'long tail' thing and match the Rp's, and use a
constant current source.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My website shows numerous schematics which speak volumes about my
preferences for best-ness.

But in the last few years I have re-engineered a few high end amps
including ARC VT100, Manley Labs Snappers, and an old pair of Dynaco
Mk-VI.

In these amps there were 4 x 9 pin sockets for each channel so to make
good use of the sockets. With the ARC VT100, I did the following....

I stripped out nearly all of what ARC used, leaving only about 5% of
basic heater circuits and PSU. A carpenter's chisel was used remove
the tracks and surplus stuff to the bin. There's a lotta stuff which
does not give more hi-fi, so its best removed.. New tracks were used
using links of wire. 101 other things were don, like soldering copper
wire to bases of 6550 to be able to wire them in so they can't fall
out of the terrible octal sockets ARC have used which have very poor
grip on tube pins.

Then,

Input = LTP with a one twin triode 6DJ8 on each side. MJE340 CCS
cathode tail to a negative rail.

Driver = 2 x 12BH7, one on each side of balanced amp with common Rk to
negative rail. Balance drive was better than 1%.

Output tubes all fitted with individually adjustable fixed bias and bi
colour green/red LED used to indicate bias condition of tubes and with
full protection against bias failures. The original ARC had a total of
5 TO92 tiny j-fets used as CCS, but they are all unsuitable fragile
and unecessary. Just why Big Boys like ARC don't include such things I
routinely do is beyond my comprehension.

I did a similar thing on Dynaco mk-V1 but with EL84 in triode used on
each side of driving balanced amp.

Patrick Turner.

[Big Bad Bob]

On 05/21/11 22:03, flipper so wittily quipped:
I'm not really a 'fan' of the paraphase but the battery filament tubes
I was using in Batman didn't leave much choice. The pentode-triode
(and diode I'm not using) share the same filament in the 1D8GT and
that ruled out anything under the 'cathodes'.

ugh, yeah probably no choice. even a long tail wouldn't work well
unless you can somehow CCS both the filament AND Ik at the same time
[unlikely]. So definitely limited in what's possible.

the basic circuit design is kind of like the way a differential
amplifier circuit works, where the sum of the inverting + non-inverting
must become zero when the circuit is in balance. The error is then
infinitely amplified, and NFB re-balances everything to create a
reliably amplified signal (or that's the theory). So when the output of
the 'thing' that produces the inverting signal is summed with the
original, this creates the 'error' signal. Ideally, you have zero error
when the circuit works. Unfortunately, low gain triodes will result in
higher error, so you'll probably need something to adjust balance on it.
Hence... (your additional comments)

I call mine a 'hybrid' paraphase because, as mentioned, the triodes
don't have a lot of gain so it starts off looking like a plain
paraphase where you tap a 'small' signal off the first phase to drive
the second. But rather than just a tap I also link the second phase
into it, like a floating paraphase, so the tap 'predisposes' the
signal level and the feedback works around that predisposition.

I'm guessing this corrects for what I mentioned above. 'Tricky' stuff.

If the tubes are identical and exactly as spec'd for bogey then
everything gains and sums up to what's expected so there's,
essentially, 'nothing for the feedback to do'. But if either are off
then the summation doesn't 'come out right' and tends to push the
second triode toward a match.

and that's another problem with paraphase - you need matching 'things'
and component aging isn't compensated for in the least.

It isn't very much NFB, maybe 9 dB, but, hey, why not? Actually, I'm
not quite sure how to calculate it but there's a 3 to 1 voltage
difference with R2 connected there ('closed loop') vs not so I figure
that's 9.5dB.

http://flipperhome.dyndns.org/Batman.htm

pretty cool. FYI something LIKE THIS is ideal for generating "tube amp
distortion" without wasting a lot of power. You could use an 8 ohm
dummy load and overdrive it into a different amp (which then gets you
the volume). /me getting ideas.

The amp is still dominated by 2's harmonics but that's from the open
ended first stage.

a tetrode? Ok, just watch out for the reverse-resistance range at low
current. 100k on the plate may suggest that you're already in that
slot, hence the 2nd harmonic distortion [which may get even worse]. You
might halve that and adjust bias for twice the current. OK gain may be
lower, or then again may not. You're probably dropping 40v or so across
the 100k which is .4 ma so 47k and .8 ma should get you a bit more
linearity. [I'll leave it up to you to tweek the bias on it]. Ep too
low is also likely to create problems. My rule is to pick a voltage
that's about 1/2 B+ for the 'rest state', using a plate current that's
reasonably linear for an easily obtainable G1 bias. Anyway, if you can
put in test signals you might want to do that to generate your own
curves, maybe 3VDC with a potentiometer and manual readings (or storage
scope if you have one). /me reminded of the $89 pocket scope I bought a
few months ago - very nice, goes up to 1Mhz.

Down side for cathodyne is that you have to make sure that the
Rp-Rk never drops below around 50V or so (depending on the tube) in the
worst case voltage swing.

yes. using high B+ helps. If you've got power tubes that need 400V
that's not too difficult. You can add an R+C filter, drop down to maybe
380V with a relatively large R and make that the supply for the
cathodyne part. I like to split the voltage so that the G1 bias is less
than the voltage drop across Rp or Rk at steady state, and is also
SIGNIFICANTLY less than 1/5 of the supply voltage. So then the best
case voltages for 60V negative bias (on the power tubes) would be 70V on
the cathode and ~310V on the plate (steady state, B+ 380), with 130 on
the cathode and 240 on the plate at the 'highest current' point.
Unfortunately this will have higher 2nd harmonic distortion due to the
wider current swing. Anyway, Rp - Rk is 110, which is more than enough,
so this could be tweeked a bit more, maybe 90V on the cathode and 290 on
the plate at steady state, then Rp - Rk is 80V, still well within the
linear range for a typical triode. Then you just pick resistors that
match your desired current, and make sure the G1 volts at steady state
is around Ek + bias. But if this is directly driven from a prior stage
then you must increase Ek to an even higher amount to prevent Ep on the
driving stage from getting too low. So now you tweek it up a bit more,
with steady state Ek at 110 (~50V min on driver tube plate), and 280V
Ep, with 'worst case' at 170V Ek and 220V Ep (now down to 50V), and
you're "there". Current only has to change by a fraction of the
quiescent value, you can direct drive it from the prior stage, and if
you choose the right parts (and maybe even regulate the B+ for the
pre-amps) it self-balances. Anyway, point well taken on min Ep - Ek.

At that point I'd do the 'long tail' thing and match the Rp's, and
use a constant current source.

Neither Williamson nor Baxandall had transistors to conveniently
create a CCS.

you could do it with tubes. Ground grid, put Rk that sets the current
to what you want, plate in series with long tail cathodes, and use a
voltage divider (filtered) to bias the grids. But then Ek is much
higher than it would be with a transistor, since you could drop down
below 2v and still get your CCS (thereby using ground potential for the
grid bias). Cheating and using germanium transistors you could go even
lower.

It also depends on whether it matters enough to bother with. PP gain
imbalance manifests predominately as 2'nd harmonic and, remember,
that's 'the first to go' with NFB.

interesting point. yeah, you can tolerate a bit of imbalance. But the
result is likely to be a reduction in output power, or uneven clipping
when overdriven.

[Patrick Turner]

Somebody said...

Neither Williamson nor Baxandall had transistors to conveniently
create a CCS.

you could do it with tubes. *Ground grid, put Rk that sets the current
to what you want, plate in series with long tail cathodes, and use a
voltage divider (filtered) to bias the grids. *But then Ek is much
higher than it would be with a transistor, since you could drop down
below 2v and still get your CCS (thereby using ground potential for the
grid bias). *Cheating and using germanium transistors you could go even
lower.

Easiest 10mA CCS for an LTP is with a 6AU6 pentode. Anode to the
common LTP cathodes, screen bypassed to cathode, fixed Eg1 bias at
-100V, fixed cathode supply at -150V with Rk at about 5k2, so that if
the 6AU6 µ is say 1,600, effective Ra = 8.7Meg. But with an MJE340,
you get much more than that easily. Tube CCS really need two tubes in
series to get really high finite Ra values, and bean counters in 1955
had firmly forbiden any such extravagances in consumer grade audio
gear. "Cracked carbon" resistors with accurate and stable R values
were also expensive and forbidden. But making do with sub-optimal
solutions was very popular.

Patrick Turner.

[Big Bad Bob]

On 05/22/11 04:40, flipper so wittily quipped:
On Sun, 22 May 2011 03:49:29 -0700, Big Bad Bob
wrote:

On 05/21/11 22:03, flipper so wittily quipped:
I'm not really a 'fan' of the paraphase but the battery filament tubes
I was using in Batman didn't leave much choice. The pentode-triode
(and diode I'm not using) share the same filament in the 1D8GT and
that ruled out anything under the 'cathodes'.

ugh, yeah probably no choice. even a long tail wouldn't work well
unless you can somehow CCS both the filament AND Ik at the same time
[unlikely]. So definitely limited in what's possible.

Filament IS Ik. And when more than one tube in the bottle it's the
combined Ik from all of them. No kind of 'tail' will work.

yeah, ok. technically Ik would be the sum of Ip + Ig (the latter
irrelevant for triodes) but ok. Filament current is really a different
path and that's what I meant. So in your case "Ik" = Ip + filament
current (whatever Ix that would be). That's just a distraction, anyway.
However, if you _did_ have a way of isolating the actual cathode
EMISSION current from the filament current you might be able to get it
to work. /me can't think of any way to do that, though.

I could have used single triodes but it still isn't so easy to power
the filaments since they're the 'cathode' and would be floating on the
'tail'. Gets to be a real mess.

and that's the point.

[Patrick Turner]

On May 21, 12:21*pm, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 06:54:32 -0700, Big Bad Bob





wrote:
On 05/20/11 03:22, Patrick Turner so wittily quipped:
Baxandall's amp isn't real bad, but the first input pentode must
produce a voltage large enough to drive one 6L6 grid in beam tetrode
mode with fixed Eg2. The other input pentode operates as an inverting
anode follower with unity gain, but any THD generated in V1 is passed
on to be reproduced in V2. In effect, driver amp distortion is double
that of a single tube, and this defect also occurs in any amp using a
paraphase driver.

I hadn't heard the term 'paraphase' until you mentioned it, so I did a
bit of online research, found out that I've seen things like that before
and I never liked it done 'that way', but yeah, using PENTODES just
makes everything worse for distortion and potential imbalance. *Relying
on the circuit gain characteristics of a tube for your design, or
requiring a balance adjustment to make it work, is just silly.

Yes, well, the original Williamson called for a balance control on the
separate triode voltage amps because their gain is what it is. The
Williamson looks balanced but unless the triodes are identical, fat
chance, it isn't. (He later decided GNFB was enough to not need the
balance pot).

Williamson fell under the spell of the bean counters who had declared
war upon anyone who ever used one more resistor than necessary
acording to the rules laid down by the Society Of Bean Counters.

So he used that stupid arrangement with his KT66 cathode circuit
involving pots to balance ****. Balance it did, until a tube over
heated, and in EVERY single Williamson sample I have had to repair,
guess what - fried pots where thy just should *never ever* be used.
Leak's idea of cathode bias with two R&C bias networks was best, and
**** the rest. Its because the dual R gave the best bias regulation.

The balance of the Willy *short* tail pair, STP, was poor because the
tail R was such a low value. But the concertina as per Willy gave
excellent balance providing anode and cathode R were equal. This
balance is maintained well enough in a Willy amp, but can be be much
improved if a 4k7 is put in between 0V and the 470R which is in the
orriginal. THEN the natural balance of the STP becomes good enough to
never wish for more. But with that 4k7 added, the STP won't give very
good balance if driven on only one side, like the Leak circuit and so
many others, Mullard 520 etc. The simple answer to good balance and
simplicity is to use an LTP with CCS tail.

And if one don't like the 2H generated in V1 SE stage from ruining
music then use an input LTP with 6SN7/6CG7/6DJ8/ etc for V1 and V2,
with CCS tail, then use a second LTP for V3 and V4 with
6SN7/6CG7/12BH7/EL84/EL86/ etc, which has a tail R taken to -150Vdc.
The amp input is taken to V1 grid and GNFB is applied to V2 grid, and
the whole input-driver is thus beautifully balanced.
I recall I saw a version in RDH4, but have forgotten where, and it
don't matter because in 1955 they didn't have handy things like an
MJE340 which makes a splendid CCS.

The Baxandall is a floating paraphase, which uses negative feedback.

Look at it again. The second pentode is driven by the difference of
the two signal paths, the two 470k summing 'sense' resistors, and is
not operating open loop like the Williamson voltage amp triodes are.

True. What distracted me was that the SP61 have different anode RL for
Idc, input has 47k, and second tube has 4k7, and this looks like a
typo. Let's assume both SP61 have RLdc = 47k. But you'll find balance
only fair enough. The higher the gain of such signal pentodes, the
better the balance becomes. I don't like seeing any grid circuit
operating from a high impedance like the two 470k. Isn't the Baxandall
circuit almost identical to the Schmitt? p526 RDH4.

But ARC d40 used a circuit where the input signal came to one input
tube with cathode FB and also to a unity gain amp to make the second
phase which powered a second input tube with an oppositely phased FB
signal. The OPT had a CT and there were balanced GNFB loops of
opposite phase. Too complex of course. But the d40 was better IMHO
than later ARC which became a ****in nightmare of complexity.


I used a similar floating paraphase on my "Batman" battery guitar amp
but used triodes and since they were low gain I 'predisposed' the
balance to nominal, and let the feedback work around that, but with
pentodes you have lots of gain for NFB around the phase splitter.

The floating paraphase has a different HF roll off on the two paths
but, then, so does a concertina.

Also true, but the HF output roll off of the two phases in a
Williamson are both at such a high F that the THD thus generated is
well above 20kHz and not important. I found that the the HF balance
from a concertina could be made near equal if about 15pF or other low
C value is across the cathode R of the concertina to slightly boost
the gain from the anode.

None of them are 'perfect'.

In RDH4, P344, there is a 30W beam tetrode amp with 807 with SE
pentode input, pentode concertina.
Page 344 has the triode Williamson with 807. P353 is interesting
though, positive and negative FB loops are used. This is PURE
QUIRKINESS for those who must have quirks in their amplifier
collection. I have never seen any commercial design with PFB and NFB -
too hard to get right. But most amps do have quite a few quarks
lurking about.

Nothing is ever perfect.

Patrick Turner.

[John L Stewart]

In RDH4, P344, there is a 30W beam tetrode amp with 807 with SE
pentode input, pentode concertina.
Page 344 has the triode Williamson with 807. P353 is interesting
though, positive and negative FB loops are used. This is PURE
QUIRKINESS for those who must have quirks in their amplifier
collection. I have never seen any commercial design with PFB and NFB -
too hard to get right. But most amps do have quite a few quarks
lurking about.

Nothing is ever perfect.

Patrick Turner.[/quote]

That 807 amp on p344 is simply a barely passable PA type, nothing more. The NFB connexion used makes the OP stage more susceptable to PS ripple.

The amp shown on p353 was probably never available commercially, but the text gives a good description of how the circuit works.

Several of the Electrovoice Circlotrons used +ve current FB from the secondary of the OPT to accomplish very low to zero internal impedance & go even negative. Another way of looking at it is infinite or -ve DF.

If we looked a bit we could probably find others. But not something for an amatuer to attack.

Makes up for speaker lead resistance. And something no one seems to talk about, that being the DC resistance of the speaker coil itself.

Cheers to all, John

[Patrick Turner]

On May 22, 9:47*am, John L Stewart John.L.Stewart.
wrote:
In RDH4, P344, there is a 30W beam tetrode amp with 807 with SE
pentode input, pentode concertina.
Page 344 has the triode Williamson with 807. P353 is interesting
though, positive and negative FB loops are used. This is PURE
QUIRKINESS for those who must have quirks in their amplifier
collection. I have never seen any commercial design with PFB and NFB -
too hard to get right. But most amps do have quite a few quarks
lurking about.

Nothing is ever perfect.

Patrick Turner.

That 807 amp on p344 is simply a barely passable PA type, nothing more.
The NFB connexion used makes the OP stage more susceptable to PS ripple.

Agreed. I like the RDH4 book, its like a bible, but the wisdom needs
to be applied in a modern world.

The amp shown on p353 was probably never available commercially, but the
text gives a good description of how the circuit works.

Indeed.

Several of the Electrovoice Circlotrons used +ve current FB from the
secondary of the OPT to accomplish very low to zero internal impedance &
go even negative. Another way of looking at it is infinite or -ve DF.

Bogan also did variable damping factor with positive current FB. I've
tried it. Dagerous, because Vo rises when RL is reduced, and if the
load is a short the damn thing tries to oscillate to death. Not nice.
But the PCFB can be made to work at LF only which then vastly improves
the bass "tighness", whatever that is. Such things are gimics. The
PCFB increases THD/IMD and reduces BW.

If we looked a bit we could probably find others. But not something for an
amatuer to attack.

Depends. 1% of amateurs know more than many professionals. Pros only
know so much, and bean counters limit realization of many ideas.

Makes up for speaker lead resistance. And something no one seems to talk
about, that being the DC resistance of the speaker coil itself.

Theil and Small had a lot to say about speakers; A few lines of
incomprehensible text, then a formula stretching across the page,
then another bit of text, then another formula.

They would lecture everyone about speakers et all and at the end of
any lecture there remained a stubborn palpable presence of the non
diminished mysteries of how speakers worked.

Anyway, about 40 years later, a few blokes who understood a little of
the math were able to cobble up a program or three so that other
blokes just could dial in a speaker driver characteristics, go CLICK,
and there was the best kinda box needed without the trial and errors
involved with guesswork which always produces expensive samples of
firewood. Somehere buried in the input data was the winding
resistance. With other books and info stuff a bloke then could learn
how to make most dynamic speakers look like a humble resistance as far
as eyes of an amplifier were concerned. You liddle beauty, because
then the damn crossovers would work as intended. But then a good
speaker maker needs to build around the measured and non flat
frequency response of the selected drivers, and if you've ever build a
4 way speaker, bass, lower MF, uper MF, and HF, and all with second
order filters, boy, what a lot to get right! - many, many, many tings
and tings.

The world is chokka block full of both amateurs and pros who for 101
reasons never consider enough factoids, and most won't admit it.


Patrick Turner.



Cheers to all, John

--
John L Stewart

[Big Bad Bob]

On 05/21/11 04:41, Patrick Turner so wittily quipped:
Williamson fell under the spell of the bean counters who had declared
war upon anyone who ever used one more resistor than necessary
acording to the rules laid down by the Society Of Bean Counters.

that can happen. accountants driving design. sometimes good, sometimes
not. 'cost reduction' phases are typical.

So he used that stupid arrangement with his KT66 cathode circuit
involving pots to balance ****. Balance it did, until a tube over
heated, and in EVERY single Williamson sample I have had to repair,
guess what - fried pots where thy just should *never ever* be used.
Leak's idea of cathode bias with two R&C bias networks was best, and
**** the rest. Its because the dual R gave the best bias regulation.

self-correcting (inherently stable) circuit designs. who'd a thunk it.
That as opposed to potentially UNstable ones. Like that one.
Assuming nothing ever overloads/overheats, nothing ever ages, nothing
ever works differently than it does in the design lab, etc. is just a
recipe for RMA's and costly design revs. And unhappy customers.

it's my opinion that adjustments are bad, anyway. It's an extra step
during the assembly that requires a technician to perform. Adding a few
extra parts to PREVENT that step is preferable, my $.10 worth anyway.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
Patrick Turner wrote:


In RDH4, P344, there is a 30W beam tetrode amp with 807 with SE
pentode input, pentode concertina.
Page 344 has the triode Williamson with 807. P353 is interesting
though, positive and negative FB loops are used. This is PURE
QUIRKINESS for those who must have quirks in their amplifier
collection. I have never seen any commercial design with PFB and NFB -
too hard to get right. But most amps do have quite a few quarks
lurking about.

Look here for a common combined PFB & NFB circuit.

http://www.triodeel.com/dynast35.gif

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[GRe]

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


In RDH4, P344, there is a 30W beam tetrode amp with 807 with SE
pentode input, pentode concertina.
Page 344 has the triode Williamson with 807. P353 is interesting
though, positive and negative FB loops are used. This is PURE
QUIRKINESS for those who must have quirks in their amplifier
collection. I have never seen any commercial design with PFB and NFB -
too hard to get right. But most amps do have quite a few quarks
lurking about.

Look here for a common combined PFB & NFB circuit.

http://www.triodeel.com/dynast35.gif


6.3VAC on the 6BQ5 (common) cathodes????

Gio



--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Patrick Turner]

On May 23, 5:33*am, John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
*Patrick Turner wrote:



In RDH4, P344, there is a 30W beam tetrode amp with 807 with SE
pentode input, pentode concertina.
Page 344 has the triode Williamson with 807. P353 is interesting
though, positive and negative FB loops are used. This is PURE
QUIRKINESS for those who must have quirks in their amplifier
collection. I have never seen any commercial design with PFB and NFB -
too hard to get right. But most amps do have quite a few quarks
lurking about.

Look here for a common combined PFB & NFB circuit.

http://www.triodeel.com/dynast35.gif

--
Regards,

John Byrns

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

Indeed, PFB cathode to cathode of the input stages and in the presence
of NFB. But how much PFB is there? What effect would it have on
stability margins and reactive ( capacitance) load tolerance? I've
always seen PFB as one step forward, 2 steps backward - a cheap nasty
fix if ever there was one!

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

I mentioned......
I have never seen any commercial design with PFB and NFB -

Of course you have and I gave you examples the last time you said the
same thing.

I've been saying the same thing because I've never seen PFB used in
commercial amps like the way its done in RDH4 at that amp. Sometimes
bootstrapping is PFB, but usually the gain increase is mild, from gain
with a load to gain which approaches µ. However, come to think about
it, Dynaco bootstrapped the pentode input tube anode RL ahead of the
triode concertina to boost the gain of the pentode. The gain with
bootstrapping a pentode often rises much more than with a triode tube
because the pentode has its anode feedback screened off from the
electron stream. Pentode µ is gm x Ra, and as pentode Ra is so high
then µ is high.

BTW,
I have to repair the design results of acountants and bean counters
all too often.


Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On May 26, 7:35*pm, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2011 00:37:17 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner

wrote:
I mentioned......
I have never seen any commercial design with PFB and NFB -

Of course you have and I gave you examples the last time you said the
same thing.

I've been saying the same thing because I've never seen PFB used in
commercial amps like the way its done in RDH4 at that amp.

Now you've changed it again by adding "like the way."

Sometimes
bootstrapping is PFB, but usually the gain increase is mild, from gain
with a load to gain which approaches µ. However, come to think about
it, Dynaco bootstrapped the pentode input tube anode RL ahead of the
triode concertina to boost the gain of the pentode.

Told ya so.

The Harmon Kardon 'Trio' also uses PFB and is the basic topology I've
used in at least three of mine.

The gain with
bootstrapping a pentode often rises much more than with a triode tube
because the pentode has its anode feedback screened off from the
electron stream. Pentode µ is gm x Ra, and as pentode Ra is so high
then µ is high.

BTW,
I have to repair the design results of acountants and bean counters
all too often.

You've never had to do it even once because bean counters don't do
design. Never have, don't now, and never will.

IMHO, you are not quite correct because bean counters and accountants
do considerable design work during development of any product. You may
laugh, but bean counters and accountants are employed to "just say no"
to engineers' first, second and third attempts to design a prototype.
This is the standard method of Bean Counter Design Process, BCDP.
Often engineers are not even employed at all lest they cost money and
crerate arguments and waste everyone's time around the office. But if
engineers are employed, design might be complete after attempt No 4,
when finally the parts count and complexity, size, and weight and
strength have been reduced to a horrible minimum to get the product to
barely make it past the warranty and its defects ensure it will never
be collectable or a classic design or any kind of sample of goodness.
The manufacture of many many products is put through the same old dumb
down mill run by the bean counters. Bean counters also ensure that
minimum or even zero product development ever takes place; what is
simulated once during 2 hours on a PC becomes the product sold to the
public, and R&D really becomes "Run and Duck" the irate buyers of a
product which fails before the warranty period expires. The Quad-II
Forty made in China is a very good example of Applied Crapology By
Bean Counters, or ACBBC, where every effort has been avoided to make a
good product while disguising what has been made with a chic paint job
which does not improve the sound by even +0.002 dB.

The Product Promoters ensure the quality removal design work by bean
counters will yield nice fat company profits for shareholders who have
a nasty habit of selling their shares in a panic if the fatness isn't
fat enough, because they are into fatness maximums.
But then the company in China might be "owned" by a relative of a high
ranking member of China's elitist Communist Party and profits are
REALLY FAT because the Quad amps are sold high while workers maybe
only earn 64c per hour. People can be persuaded to eat a **** sandwich
very easily, and big profits have been made throughout history selling
**** which has been diluted before being applied between very thin
slices of bread made from nutrition free white flour with chemical
additives cheaper than providing decent bread. So you can't even get a
good **** sandwich if you wanted one; even this product has been
Designed Down to maximise profits.

We are seeing Chinese made cars in shops here for 10 grand drive away
price. They fail crash tests dismally, and maybe you need to buy two
to ensure you have a spare during next years's breakdowns, but hey,
its better than a bicycle.

I hate shopping and travel. If I shop, its mostly junk I have to buy,
and if I travel, the people at arrival line up to empty my wallet, and
there's nothing to show for it except an empty wallet. Lots of things
in life are shambolic, devoid of any authenticity or wonderment. I
like bicycles.

I don't like Big Tobbacco, Big Hudrocarbon, or Big Brother and a whole
big list of other Mr Bigs in manufacturing who perpetuate products I
don't have any desire for. They all want me to be a debt ridden but
addicted and compliant little consumer. But I say no to most of them.
They deal in negativity, so from me they get negativity.

Patrick Turner.








Patrick Turner.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Bret Ludwig[_2_]]

Quirky old stuff is "my thing", so I stash away old transformers and the like. It does seem however that UK designers took a different tack when designing amps/transformers for this style of feedback. *So the vintage British transformers I have won't simply "drop in". *I'm OK with that.

Yes, you have to respect a thing for what it is and not want it
isn't. I bought an old Plymouth with four doors, a Slant Six and three
on the tree a couple of years ago and sold it. The new owner gutted it
as it didn't have what he wanted, lost interest, and the next guy
pulled off the chrome trim and scrapped it. A perfectly good car
scrapped. *

There have been an amazing number of different amps designed by guys
who yearned to be unique. "Yearning For Uniqueness" would have to an
extremely vain pre-occupation of anyone's mind when we consider the
**** of one man smells almost identically to the **** of the next man
along. We all like redheads, brunnettes, and blondes, and what we do
with them is remarkably similar, ie, the divorce rate in the US is
about the same as in Britain.

I grew up in a house with two parents, a grandmther, and two older
brothers and a sometimes visiting older half sister. If I went into
the bathroom within a few minutes of any of the above having taken a
**** there I could without fail identify which had done so. I knew
everyone's **** smell, all different.

But the implementation of any one amplifier idea is often just as
important as the idea itself. Ultralinear was the favourite in the US,
and so was global NFB around 3 gain stages with FB froma speaker
winding to cathode of V1. The Pomms showed how in the Williamson which
was a PP triode thinge which quickly became UL if you wanted it to be
for more power. The americans were fond of power, and their cars were
bigger, waistlines longer, houses bigger and government more
influential after WW2. Everything in the USA had to be bigger
brighter, louder, et all while in Deare Olde England which was savaged
by WW2 things remained GRIM with housing, rates of pay, and standard
of living for far longer than in the US after WW2. With smaller houses
and smaller budgets, only the rich in the UK could buy Quad-II amps
with the luxury of powerful octal based tubes such as KT66. KT88 had
to wait until 1957, 12 years after WW2. It wasa time when interest in
hi-fi was seen by many as vain, vapid, absurd, and eccentric. In my
observations of audiophiles, I can see that not much has changed.

Socialism ruined Britain postwar. The country has never recovered as
it went from being poor but at least British to being overrun with
immigrants, nonwhite immigrants, none of which have any interest in
being British. The BNP is doing as best it can but too little too
late.



All these old circuits have serious shortcomings which are only made
worse when someone tries to use an unsuitable OPT at home and they do
not understand how NOT to build an oscillator while trying to build an
amplifier.

Hopefully whatever I pick won't be unsuitable, *but is going to need some changes. *Perhaps in the end the amount of NFB will need to be reduced.

The use of NFB from a dedicated NFB winding which uses fine wire
because there is little current was something major makers never
adopted. Baxandal and Williamson were the most ignored blokes of 1950.
People wanted SIMPLE CHEAP solutions, and these two boffins offered
neither cheap nor simple, and insisted on going the extra country mile
to fetch a bucket full of real hi-fi. Baxandall was brilliant, and his
analysis of the Quad ESL57 requirements of the step up trannies shows
how damn dumb most consequent people were about basic audio LCR ideas.
And many online DIY ppl who have tried to build ESL show how dumb they
continue to be.

Baxandall's amp isn't real bad, but the first input pentode must
produce a voltage large enough to drive one 6L6 grid in beam tetrode
mode with fixed Eg2. The other input pentode operates as an inverting
anode follower with unity gain, but any THD generated in V1 is passed
on to be reproduced in V2. In effect, driver amp distortion is double
that of a single tube, and this defect also occurs in any amp using a
paraphase driver.

The Williamson is *FAR BETTER amp design than
anything with two pentode input tubes. But in 1950, many designers had
a real bad case of pentoditis, the affliction where blokes chose a
pentode instead of two low µ triodes which give much less THD and
IMD.

Not necessarily. The resulting amp used fewer tubes and therefore was
more reliable. It used less heater power. The Quad worked fine for
decades with the original tube set in many instances, and was much
simpler than the American Mcintosh and it did the job for its intended
market.

The Quad buyer was an affluent sort that just wanted it to play the
music with little fuss. That ti did.

I would advise having a new transformer wound to the original spec if
the amp is worth keeping.

[Patrick Turner]

On May 30, 9:38*am, Bret Ludwig wrote:
Quirky old stuff is "my thing", so I stash away old transformers and the like. It does seem however that UK designers took a different tack when designing amps/transformers for this style of feedback. *So the vintage British transformers I have won't simply "drop in". *I'm OK with that.

*Yes, you have to respect a thing for what it is and not want it
isn't. I bought an old Plymouth with four doors, a Slant Six and three
on the tree a couple of years ago and sold it. The new owner gutted it
as it didn't have what he wanted, lost interest, and the next guy
pulled off the chrome trim and scrapped it. A perfectly good car
scrapped. *



There have been an amazing number of different amps designed by guys
who yearned to be unique. "Yearning For Uniqueness" would have to an
extremely vain pre-occupation of anyone's mind when we consider the
**** of one man smells almost identically to the **** of the next man
along. We all like redheads, brunnettes, and blondes, and what we do
with them is remarkably similar, ie, the divorce rate in the US is
about the same as in Britain.

*I grew up in a house with two parents, a grandmther, and two older
brothers and a sometimes visiting older half sister. If I went into
the bathroom within a few minutes of any of the above having taken a
**** there I could without fail identify which had done so. I knew
everyone's **** smell, all different.

Ah, well, your powers of perception are remarkable, bearing in mind
your fascinations, and, but, unlike yourself, it must have been my
almost complete dis-interest in the smell of the other 7 ppl in the
house I grew up i that i completely missed out on knowing whose crap
was whose, or else perhaps the toilet in our house was better
ventilated than in yours. :-)

But the implementation of any one amplifier idea is often just as
important as the idea itself. Ultralinear was the favourite in the US,
and so was global NFB around 3 gain stages with FB froma speaker
winding to cathode of V1. The Pomms showed how in the Williamson which
was a PP triode thinge which quickly became UL if you wanted it to be
for more power. The americans were fond of power, and their cars were
bigger, waistlines longer, houses bigger and government more
influential after WW2. Everything in the USA had to be bigger
brighter, louder, et all while in Deare Olde England which was savaged
by WW2 things remained GRIM with housing, rates of pay, and standard
of living for far longer than in the US after WW2. With smaller houses
and smaller budgets, only the rich in the UK could buy Quad-II amps
with the luxury of powerful octal based tubes such as KT66. KT88 had
to wait until 1957, 12 years after WW2. It was a time when interest in
hi-fi was seen by many as vain, vapid, absurd, and eccentric. In my
observations of audiophiles, I can see that not much has changed.

*Socialism ruined Britain postwar. The country has never recovered as
it went from being poor but at least British to being overrun with
immigrants, nonwhite immigrants, none of which have any interest in
being British. The BNP is doing as best it can but too little too
late.

So where were you when ya could have lent them your machine gun to
make Britain a better place?

Oh, I guess you really hate all those Mexicans crossing the border
too, yet they do all the dirty work so nice and cheap now don't they?

Probably you hate a browned skin man being President Of the USA, and
giving speaches in Ireland last week which would have been totally
beyond the capability of Dubbya, or of Sarah Palin.


All these old circuits have serious shortcomings which are only made
worse when someone tries to use an unsuitable OPT at home and they do
not understand how NOT to build an oscillator while trying to build an
amplifier.

Hopefully whatever I pick won't be unsuitable, *but is going to need some changes. *Perhaps in the end the amount of NFB will need to be reduced.

The use of NFB from a dedicated NFB winding which uses fine wire
because there is little current was something major makers never
adopted. Baxandal and Williamson were the most ignored blokes of 1950.
People wanted SIMPLE CHEAP solutions, and these two boffins offered
neither cheap nor simple, and insisted on going the extra country mile
to fetch a bucket full of real hi-fi. Baxandall was brilliant, and his
analysis of the Quad ESL57 requirements of the step up trannies shows
how damn dumb most consequent people were about basic audio LCR ideas.
And many online DIY ppl who have tried to build ESL show how dumb they
continue to be.

Baxandall's amp isn't real bad, but the first input pentode must
produce a voltage large enough to drive one 6L6 grid in beam tetrode
mode with fixed Eg2. The other input pentode operates as an inverting
anode follower with unity gain, but any THD generated in V1 is passed
on to be reproduced in V2. In effect, driver amp distortion is double
that of a single tube, and this defect also occurs in any amp using a
paraphase driver.

The Williamson is *FAR BETTER amp design than

anything with two pentode input tubes. But in 1950, many designers had
a real bad case of pentoditis, the affliction where blokes chose a
pentode instead of two low µ triodes which give much less THD and
IMD.

*Not necessarily. The resulting amp used fewer tubes and therefore was
more reliable. It used less heater power. The Quad worked fine for
decades with the original tube set in many instances, and was much
simpler than the American Mcintosh and it did the job for its intended
market.

*The Quad buyer was an affluent sort that just wanted it to play the
music with little fuss. That ti did.

The Quad-II was a lot better than much other worse garbage being
flogged to a gullible public in 1960. But its easy to make a better
sounding amp than Quad-II with the same 2 x KT66 and same number of
input tube sockets where a EF86 in triode would make a nice SE input
tube and then you have LTP driver/phase inverter with 6CG7.

As long as 3 pairs of mint quads are in a museum someplace, I'm happy.
But all the rest are worth complete re-wiring. I have a pair underway
here where I have wound much better OPT than the terrible originals.

Unlike ppl who ruin nice old cars, I create something far better while
making use of the basics like chassis and PT. I finish what I start.

Patrick Turner.

*I would advise having a new transformer wound to the original spec if
the amp is worth keeping.-

Yeah, very nice idea, but who can ever do EXACTLY what was done 50
years ago?

To me the past is gone, there is only the future in which lessons of
the past may be incorperated without the shortcomings of the past.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On May 30, 8:43*pm, Patrick Turner wrote:
On May 30, 9:38*am, Bret Ludwig wrote:





Quirky old stuff is "my thing", so I stash away old transformers and the like. It does seem however that UK designers took a different tack when designing amps/transformers for this style of feedback. *So the vintage British transformers I have won't simply "drop in". *I'm OK with that.

*Yes, you have to respect a thing for what it is and not want it
isn't. I bought an old Plymouth with four doors, a Slant Six and three
on the tree a couple of years ago and sold it. The new owner gutted it
as it didn't have what he wanted, lost interest, and the next guy
pulled off the chrome trim and scrapped it. A perfectly good car
scrapped. *

There have been an amazing number of different amps designed by guys
who yearned to be unique. "Yearning For Uniqueness" would have to an
extremely vain pre-occupation of anyone's mind when we consider the
**** of one man smells almost identically to the **** of the next man
along. We all like redheads, brunnettes, and blondes, and what we do
with them is remarkably similar, ie, the divorce rate in the US is
about the same as in Britain.

*I grew up in a house with two parents, a grandmther, and two older
brothers and a sometimes visiting older half sister. If I went into
the bathroom within a few minutes of any of the above having taken a
**** there I could without fail identify which had done so. I knew
everyone's **** smell, all different.

Ah, well, your powers of perception are remarkable, bearing in mind
your fascinations, and, but, unlike yourself, it must have been my
almost complete dis-interest in the smell of the other 7 ppl in the
house I grew up i that i completely missed out on knowing whose crap
was whose, or else perhaps the toilet in our house was better
ventilated than in yours. :-)







But the implementation of any one amplifier idea is often just as
important as the idea itself. Ultralinear was the favourite in the US,
and so was global NFB around 3 gain stages with FB froma speaker
winding to cathode of V1. The Pomms showed how in the Williamson which
was a PP triode thinge which quickly became UL if you wanted it to be
for more power. The americans were fond of power, and their cars were
bigger, waistlines longer, houses bigger and government more
influential after WW2. Everything in the USA had to be bigger
brighter, louder, et all while in Deare Olde England which was savaged
by WW2 things remained GRIM with housing, rates of pay, and standard
of living for far longer than in the US after WW2. With smaller houses
and smaller budgets, only the rich in the UK could buy Quad-II amps
with the luxury of powerful octal based tubes such as KT66. KT88 had
to wait until 1957, 12 years after WW2. It was a time when interest in
hi-fi was seen by many as vain, vapid, absurd, and eccentric. In my
observations of audiophiles, I can see that not much has changed.

*Socialism ruined Britain postwar. The country has never recovered as
it went from being poor but at least British to being overrun with
immigrants, nonwhite immigrants, none of which have any interest in
being British. The BNP is doing as best it can but too little too
late.

So where were you when ya could have lent them your machine gun to
make Britain a better place?

Oh, I guess you really hate all those Mexicans crossing the border
too, yet they do all the dirty work so nice and cheap now don't they?

Probably you hate a browned skin man being President Of the USA, and
giving speaches in Ireland last week which would have been totally
beyond the capability of Dubbya, or of Sarah Palin.







All these old circuits have serious shortcomings which are only made
worse when someone tries to use an unsuitable OPT at home and they do
not understand how NOT to build an oscillator while trying to build an
amplifier.

Hopefully whatever I pick won't be unsuitable, *but is going to need some changes. *Perhaps in the end the amount of NFB will need to be reduced.

The use of NFB from a dedicated NFB winding which uses fine wire
because there is little current was something major makers never
adopted. Baxandal and Williamson were the most ignored blokes of 1950..
People wanted SIMPLE CHEAP solutions, and these two boffins offered
neither cheap nor simple, and insisted on going the extra country mile
to fetch a bucket full of real hi-fi. Baxandall was brilliant, and his
analysis of the Quad ESL57 requirements of the step up trannies shows
how damn dumb most consequent people were about basic audio LCR ideas..
And many online DIY ppl who have tried to build ESL show how dumb they
continue to be.

Baxandall's amp isn't real bad, but the first input pentode must
produce a voltage large enough to drive one 6L6 grid in beam tetrode
mode with fixed Eg2. The other input pentode operates as an inverting
anode follower with unity gain, but any THD generated in V1 is passed
on to be reproduced in V2. In effect, driver amp distortion is double
that of a single tube, and this defect also occurs in any amp using a
paraphase driver.

The Williamson is *FAR BETTER amp design than

anything with two pentode input tubes. But in 1950, many designers had
a real bad case of pentoditis, the affliction where blokes chose a
pentode instead of two low µ triodes which give much less THD and
IMD.

*Not necessarily. The resulting amp used fewer tubes and therefore was
more reliable. It used less heater power. The Quad worked fine for
decades with the original tube set in many instances, and was much
simpler than the American Mcintosh and it did the job for its intended
market.

*The Quad buyer was an affluent sort that just wanted it to play the
music with little fuss. That ti did.

The Quad-II was a lot better than much other worse garbage being
flogged to a gullible public in 1960. But its easy to make a better
sounding amp than Quad-II with the same 2 x KT66 and same number of
input tube sockets where a EF86 in triode would make a nice SE input
tube and then you have LTP driver/phase inverter with 6CG7.

As long as 3 pairs of mint quads are in a museum someplace, I'm happy.
But all the rest are worth complete re-wiring. I have a pair underway
here where I have wound much better OPT than the terrible originals.

Unlike ppl who ruin nice old cars, I create something far better while
making use of the basics like chassis and PT. I finish what I start.

Patrick Turner.



*I would advise having a new transformer wound to the original spec if
the amp is worth keeping.-

Yeah, very nice idea, but who can ever do EXACTLY what was done 50
years ago?

To me the past is gone, there is only the future in which lessons of
the past may be incorperated without the shortcomings of the past.

Patrick Turner.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Bret Ludwig[_2_]]

So where were you when ya could have lent them your machine gun to
make Britain a better place?

Oh, I guess you really hate all those Mexicans crossing the border
too, yet they do all the dirty work so nice and cheap now don't they?

Probably you hate a browned skin man being President Of the USA, and
giving speaches in Ireland last week which would have been totally
beyond the capability of Dubbya, or of Sarah Palin.

I preferred Obama to McCain in fact as did most WNs. He has been a
disappointment to be sure but any other candidate would have been as
well who would have been likely to have been nominated.

I don't hate the Mexicans, although I acknowledge that the Mexicans
coming here are mostly the browner and stupider ones who can't make it
back home. I detest the fact that our politicians won't do what any
nation has to do which is secure its borders and throw out violators.
The Republicans want cheap labor to undercut the American worker, both
black and white, and the Dems want the illegals to vote, and vote
Democratic, which they will.

Machine gunning people is not the answer. Enforcing the law firmly
and acknowledging that we are White countries who should and must stay
that way is. No one race is "superior", but we are who we are and
should stay that way. Britain should be for the British and America
for the Americans.

[Patrick Turner]

On May 31, 2:51*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
So where were you when ya could have lent them your machine gun to
make Britain a better place?

Oh, I guess you really hate all those Mexicans crossing the border
too, yet they do all the dirty work so nice and cheap now don't they?

Probably you hate a browned skin man being President Of the USA, and
giving speaches in Ireland last week which would have been totally
beyond the capability of Dubbya, or of Sarah Palin.

*I preferred Obama to McCain in fact as did most WNs. He has been a
disappointment to be sure but any other candidate would have been as
well who would have been likely to have been nominated.

Well, Obama means well, IMHO. If Sarah joins the race, I doubt she'd
got a chance. Maybe the best Republicans are still mending fences
after the GFC.


*I don't hate the Mexicans, although I acknowledge that the Mexicans
coming here are mostly the browner and stupider ones who can't make it
back home.

But that's what so many say about "boat people" from Ghan and Iraq
coming here "illegally" But they are clever enough to make enough
money to pay ppl smugglers and get here.

I detest the fact that our politicians won't do what any
nation has to do which is secure its borders and throw out violators.

That's what a lot of Indians said about the white man invading their
lands. Our aboriginies resented the White man coming here in boats,
unwanted, and uninvited, and after they settled they practised
genocide.

The Republicans want cheap labor to undercut the American worker, both
black and white, and the Dems want the illegals to vote, and vote
Democratic, which they will.

Ya can't have it both ways. Money wins, no, so illegals will stay to
do work the White Fella won't. Count your blessings you don't have to
work in a food processing factory at 50C all day with quotas to meet
and low pay so your vegetables are cheap for you.

*Machine gunning people is not the answer.

Well of course not. Far too messy. I didn't mean what I said, just
jesting.
Fooling people to take up residence in places with signs which say
Work Makes You Free would be easier, and you pop a little gas in while
they have a shower before work, and then you cremate them. But you'll
get spotted, some upstart will upload a mobile phone pic of the Zyclon
B gas tablets to Facebook and the Feds will come straight over. Nah,
extermination just won't work. Far better to fudge. Appear to be
taking action, but somehow brownskins increase anyway. The Whites have
remarkably low birthrates, and half end up on welfare too soon.


Enforcing the law firmly
and acknowledging that we are White countries who should and must stay
that way is.

Yeah, but youse being out ****ed and thus out bred by Brownies, happy
smiling millions of 'em, God Love 'em. People here wanted Oz to stay
all White, and they brought in a White Australia Policy before WW1.
After WW2 It hit the dust as one of the most obnoxious, unworkable
stupid political ideas we ever came up with. After WW2 we let in all
these garlic eating wogs from Italy, Germany, Holland, Greece, and
WHOOPPEE!!! the party began, wealth went everywhere except down, these
wogs were fabulous new blood. After 1978, 200,000 Vietnamese came in.
WOW. Now we have some of the worlds best medicos.

No one race is "superior", but we are who we are and
should stay that way. *Britain should be for the British and America
for the Americans.

Total unmitigated uneducated bull****! Also ********. Definate
Balderdash. Even if you tried, the US cannot remain as you'd wish it,
which is the product of much immigration and the overcoming of huge
intolerances of differences. One most hated group of Whites were Jews.
But once in America they have flourished to enrich our lives far more
than they impoverished lives.

Plenty of brown skins here. No troubles, taxis come on time and driven
by Pakistanis. Indians grow the best tea to drink. Hospitals run
finely with asians everywhere. I love them all. I go to a cafe across
town, one of 3 in a row in a main street of a town center. Its the
Istanbul, run by arabs, but on a sunday they only get 1/3 of the
patronage of the joint next door which charges more but is run by
Whites, with mainly white customers who mistakenly might think Arabs
suck, and especially Islamic culture. So prejudice remains, but is
still breaking down and the arabs will blend in a generation and Islam
fades to relative unimportance and the whole becomes homogenous and
Whites slowly appreciate what the arabs bring. It was the arabs who
brought coffee to the west in the first place. And before that we sent
the crusades to butcher them. Its amazing so few Islamic extremists
like Arsole Bin Laden have come to spoil the party we've been having
at the expense of brown skin exploitation by Whites. We have a White
Woman as our dear leader and she's having dreadful trouble dealing
with horrible untidy unwashed brown illegals, and she plans to do all
sorts of inhumane things to them. She's also having frightful trouble
getting ppl to believe in her Carbon Tax. Now just where is a good
strong fit brown man who can be a good leader when you want one?

Look, if Sarah makes it to the White House, send Obie down to us, we
need a man like that. And we might have learnt to let him in by then.

Patrick Turner.