Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long Tail Pair with SS CCS in the Cathodes

Anyone know of design info for this type of splitter.
I have one up and running on the bench using a 12AX7 @ 300V & 1.2mA each
side
but I can't seem to make it DC (150V / 168V) balance. Should I worry about
the DC balance if the AC
is balanced? In info apprecaited.

Thanks
RonL


  #2   Report Post  
Ian Iveson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote

Anyone know of design info for this type of splitter.
I have one up and running on the bench using a 12AX7 @ 300V &
1.2mA each side
but I can't seem to make it DC (150V / 168V) balance. Should I
worry about the DC balance if the AC
is balanced? In info apprecaited.


Depends. It's pretty crucial if you direct couple to the next stage,
so it must be possible.

There are two ways. One is to apply a bias voltage to one of the LTP
grids. Assumes previous stage is not direct coupled. Never seen it
done.

The other way is to use a pot, wiper to CCS and legs to cathodes.
This should be of the least value necessary to allow the adjustment
you need. You don't give your anode loads so you'll have to work it
out yourself, or experiment with fixed resistors. Possibly start
around 100R between one cathode and CCS. When you get it about
right, sub for a pot, allowing some extra R for future adjustment.

If you also vary one of the anode loads to achieve AC balance, then
you will need to readjust the cathode pot to compensate.

If there's 1.2mA each side how come it's not DC balanced? What
you've written doesn't quite add up.

cheers, Ian

in message ...
Thanks
RonL



  #3   Report Post  
Patrick Turner
 
Posts: n/a
Default



wrote:

Anyone know of design info for this type of splitter.
I have one up and running on the bench using a 12AX7 @ 300V & 1.2mA each
side
but I can't seem to make it DC (150V / 168V) balance. Should I worry about
the DC balance if the AC
is balanced? In info apprecaited.

Thanks
RonL


Please find an example of an LTP with CCS in the amp at

http://www.turneraudio.com.au/htmlwe...0ulabinteg.htm

If the RLs to each side of the pair are equal, output signal also will be.
But the dc anode voltage won't ever be exactly the same, since no tubes are
exactly
matched for bias conditions.

The tubes could be quite different, one could be a 1/2 12AU7, the
the other a 1/2 6SN7 triode and as long as the RLs are equal
and the CCS is an extremely high resistance, such as in the
schematic I have refered you to,
ac balance will be ok even though dc balance is not good.

But using dissimilar tubes to each 1/2 of an LTP
results in 2H distortion that is normally cancelled away when each
1/2 is matched to the other in terms of Ra, gm, and µ.

Patrick Turner.



  #4   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thats what I wanted to hear!. As long as the AC is balanced. (most
important)
I wasn't sure if the DC should be balanced also.

Thanks




"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


wrote:

Anyone know of design info for this type of splitter.
I have one up and running on the bench using a 12AX7 @ 300V & 1.2mA each
side
but I can't seem to make it DC (150V / 168V) balance. Should I worry
about
the DC balance if the AC
is balanced? In info apprecaited.

Thanks
RonL


Please find an example of an LTP with CCS in the amp at

http://www.turneraudio.com.au/htmlwe...0ulabinteg.htm

If the RLs to each side of the pair are equal, output signal also will be.
But the dc anode voltage won't ever be exactly the same, since no tubes
are
exactly
matched for bias conditions.

The tubes could be quite different, one could be a 1/2 12AU7, the
the other a 1/2 6SN7 triode and as long as the RLs are equal
and the CCS is an extremely high resistance, such as in the
schematic I have refered you to,
ac balance will be ok even though dc balance is not good.

But using dissimilar tubes to each 1/2 of an LTP
results in 2H distortion that is normally cancelled away when each
1/2 is matched to the other in terms of Ra, gm, and µ.

Patrick Turner.





  #5   Report Post  
Patrick Turner
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Ian Iveson wrote:

wrote

Anyone know of design info for this type of splitter.
I have one up and running on the bench using a 12AX7 @ 300V &
1.2mA each side
but I can't seem to make it DC (150V / 168V) balance. Should I
worry about the DC balance if the AC
is balanced? In info apprecaited.


Depends. It's pretty crucial if you direct couple to the next stage,
so it must be possible.


The guy does not require the DC balance to be exact.



There are two ways. One is to apply a bias voltage to one of the LTP
grids. Assumes previous stage is not direct coupled. Never seen it
done.


One way to get DC balance is to have *two* CCS so
that one is used for each cathode of the LTP.
Then one uses a cap between the cathodes for signal shunting.
two CCS are effectively in parallel, but since their actual finite
resistance is over 20Mohms, its ok to parallel them this way
but yet make sure the DC in each anode RL is within 0.1% all the time.
..




The other way is to use a pot, wiper to CCS and legs to cathodes.


But then you have a pot in the signal path.


This should be of the least value necessary to allow the adjustment
you need. You don't give your anode loads so you'll have to work it
out yourself, or experiment with fixed resistors. Possibly start
around 100R between one cathode and CCS. When you get it about
right, sub for a pot, allowing some extra R for future adjustment.


This is ok until the next time the tubes are changed, and a reset for DC
balance has to be attained.

The twin CCS method avoids this.


If you also vary one of the anode loads to achieve AC balance, then
you will need to readjust the cathode pot to compensate.


For an LTP with a single CCS with a an adjust pot for DC balance,
the signal output will remain constant if the anode RL remain the same.
The anode RL is the DC supply resistor and the cap coupled following
grid bias resistor of the next stage in parallel.

Once the use of an LTP is addopted, the only way to vary the
output amplitudes is to vary the RLs.
But why?
The only reason would be to minimise thd for a given
value of power; some slight imbalance of signals will cancel
the 2H produced by an unmatched pair of output tubes.
Trouble is that if you adjust for least 2H at 2 watts, the adjustment
won't be right for 0.2 watts or 10 watts, or 50 watts.

So use nice output tubes and you should find
exactly balanced drive to give the lowest thd and the sweetest sound.




If there's 1.2mA each side how come it's not DC balanced? What
you've written doesn't quite add up.


Well yes, but maybe if the RL is 100k, then to get an 18V difference
in Ea, the current difference is only 0.18mA.

I think he meant that he has a *nominal 1.2mA per side,
so he must have a nominal 2.4mA in the CCS.

Patrick Turner.



cheers, Ian

in message ...
Thanks
RonL




  #6   Report Post  
Patrick Turner
 
Posts: n/a
Default



wrote:

Thats what I wanted to hear!. As long as the AC is balanced. (most
important)
I wasn't sure if the DC should be balanced also.


If the LTP is a twin triode, or a low µ triode like the 12AU7, 6CG7, 6SN7,
then you should find the dc balance very close with most tubes that
test well.

Maybe you have a 6SL7, or 12AX7, 12AY7, 12AT7,
and the gain is higher, so expect more difference in Ea for the
two triodes.
Usually is never more than 10V difference.
The biasing of each LTP triode shouldn't use greater than 470k grid R
lest the tiny grid current that flows develops a voltage which can effect the
quiescent anode volts, ( Ea ).

Direct coupled LTPs like in a Mullard 520 etc have the first triode
direct coupled to the anode of the input tube, then a 1M or more
is taken to the second triode grid which is grounded via a 0.1uF or suchlike.
Sometimes there is a slight dc voltage across the 1M, so this dc unbalances the
LTP.

BTW, for the Mullard circuit to be properly ac balanced
while a common cathode R of say 22k is used from cathodes to 0V,
the usual way to achieve balance is to adjust the value of the DC carrying RL
to each triode until balance is achieved.
This usually upsets the dc balance which does not matter much
in most amps because the LTP will clip well after the output stage clips.

But the LTP with a CCS allows much easier setting up with equal RL values
which are cheaply available at 1% tolerances or better.
Its the RL values which automatically balance the LTP with a CCS
that makes it such an attractive gain block.

Just make sure you have a high impedance meter for
measuring the outputs and dcV values; it should be
better than 9M input Z to the meter.
Most digital meters are like this and read ok between 20Hz and 1 kHz.
Above 1kHz, digital meter signal volt readings roll off due to the capacitance
of the meter.

Patrick Turner.







Thanks

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


wrote:

Anyone know of design info for this type of splitter.
I have one up and running on the bench using a 12AX7 @ 300V & 1.2mA each
side
but I can't seem to make it DC (150V / 168V) balance. Should I worry
about
the DC balance if the AC
is balanced? In info apprecaited.

Thanks
RonL


Please find an example of an LTP with CCS in the amp at

http://www.turneraudio.com.au/htmlwe...0ulabinteg.htm

If the RLs to each side of the pair are equal, output signal also will be.
But the dc anode voltage won't ever be exactly the same, since no tubes
are
exactly
matched for bias conditions.

The tubes could be quite different, one could be a 1/2 12AU7, the
the other a 1/2 6SN7 triode and as long as the RLs are equal
and the CCS is an extremely high resistance, such as in the
schematic I have refered you to,
ac balance will be ok even though dc balance is not good.

But using dissimilar tubes to each 1/2 of an LTP
results in 2H distortion that is normally cancelled away when each
1/2 is matched to the other in terms of Ra, gm, and µ.

Patrick Turner.




  #7   Report Post  
Ian Iveson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Patrick Turner" wrote

The guy does not require the DC balance to be exact.


None of us actually knows that. "The guy" wondered about it, you
assumed it, and let's hope you are right in this case. Wouldn't have
worked in my amp.

One way to get DC balance is to have *two* CCS so
that one is used for each cathode of the LTP.
Then one uses a cap between the cathodes for signal shunting.


Hadn't considered mentioning that idea.

You would need a large value, non-polar cap. Never seen it done.
Works in theory, but puts a cap where it otherwise wouldn't be
necessary. Nice idea, but you need to give it more thought.

two CCS are effectively in parallel, but since their actual finite
resistance is over 20Mohms, its ok to parallel them this way


Why shouldn't it be? You are confusing issues. CCS are OK in
parallel, not in series. CVS is vice-versa. And they are not in
parallel anyway because they are DC, and are isolated by a cap.
Maybe there is another interpretation of what you mean to say?

but yet make sure the DC in each anode RL is within 0.1% all the
time.


Whatever. If used to adjust bias in following stage, another
criterion applies.

The other way is to use a pot, wiper to CCS and legs to cathodes.


But then you have a pot in the signal path.


100R or so between the cathodes isn't much, but the purist in me
doesn't like it either even though it's only a spot of
series-derived nfb equally applied to both sides. I cannot see a
"purist" solution myself...between us we have outlined *every*
logical possibility. It's a shame for the purist, who otherwise
might be attracted to a chain of dc coupled ltp for a fully-balanced
amp.

Plot gets a bit more complicated still if you wish to use global nfb
for such an amp.

Rest of your contribution is quite correct.

cheers, Ian

in message ...

This should be of the least value necessary to allow the
adjustment
you need. You don't give your anode loads so you'll have to work
it
out yourself, or experiment with fixed resistors. Possibly start
around 100R between one cathode and CCS. When you get it about
right, sub for a pot, allowing some extra R for future
adjustment.


This is ok until the next time the tubes are changed, and a reset
for DC
balance has to be attained.

The twin CCS method avoids this.

If you also vary one of the anode loads to achieve AC balance,
then
you will need to readjust the cathode pot to compensate.


For an LTP with a single CCS with a an adjust pot for DC balance,
the signal output will remain constant if the anode RL remain the
same.
The anode RL is the DC supply resistor and the cap coupled
following
grid bias resistor of the next stage in parallel.

Once the use of an LTP is addopted, the only way to vary the
output amplitudes is to vary the RLs.
But why?
The only reason would be to minimise thd for a given
value of power; some slight imbalance of signals will cancel
the 2H produced by an unmatched pair of output tubes.
Trouble is that if you adjust for least 2H at 2 watts, the
adjustment
won't be right for 0.2 watts or 10 watts, or 50 watts.

So use nice output tubes and you should find
exactly balanced drive to give the lowest thd and the sweetest
sound.


If there's 1.2mA each side how come it's not DC balanced? What
you've written doesn't quite add up.


Well yes, but maybe if the RL is 100k, then to get an 18V
difference
in Ea, the current difference is only 0.18mA.

I think he meant that he has a *nominal 1.2mA per side,
so he must have a nominal 2.4mA in the CCS.

Patrick Turner.



  #8   Report Post  
Engineer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


wrote:

Thats what I wanted to hear!. As long as the AC is balanced. (most
important)
I wasn't sure if the DC should be balanced also.


If the LTP is a twin triode, or a low µ triode like the 12AU7, 6CG7,
6SN7,
then you should find the dc balance very close with most tubes that
test well.

Maybe you have a 6SL7, or 12AX7, 12AY7, 12AT7,
and the gain is higher, so expect more difference in Ea for the
two triodes.
Usually is never more than 10V difference.
The biasing of each LTP triode shouldn't use greater than 470k grid
R
lest the tiny grid current that flows develops a voltage which can
effect the
quiescent anode volts, ( Ea ).

Direct coupled LTPs like in a Mullard 520 etc have the first triode
direct coupled to the anode of the input tube, then a 1M or more
is taken to the second triode grid which is grounded via a 0.1uF or
suchlike.
Sometimes there is a slight dc voltage across the 1M, so this dc
unbalances the
LTP.

BTW, for the Mullard circuit to be properly ac balanced
while a common cathode R of say 22k is used from cathodes to 0V,
the usual way to achieve balance is to adjust the value of the DC
carrying RL
to each triode until balance is achieved.
This usually upsets the dc balance which does not matter much
in most amps because the LTP will clip well after the output stage
clips.

But the LTP with a CCS allows much easier setting up with equal RL
values
which are cheaply available at 1% tolerances or better.
Its the RL values which automatically balance the LTP with a CCS
that makes it such an attractive gain block.

Just make sure you have a high impedance meter for
measuring the outputs and dcV values; it should be
better than 9M input Z to the meter.
Most digital meters are like this and read ok between 20Hz and 1
kHz.
Above 1kHz, digital meter signal volt readings roll off due to the
capacitance
of the meter.

Patrick Turner.


I've nearly completed a "spares box" 10 watt amplifier design (EF86,
6SN7, 2 x 6V6) that uses a "Mullard 5-10" EF86 circuit (120K, 2,2K,
100 ohms, etc), directly coupled (108 VDC) to g1 of the first 1/2
6SN7, with a CC circuit in cathode. The latter is an MJE340
transistor with a 5.6 Kohm emitter resistor and a +25 volt (approx) DC
reference to the base for 4.3 mA CC (2.15 mA for each 1/2 6SN7 with
33Kohms on each plate.)

DC balance is close to perfect and drive to 6V6's very balanced.

Getting 10.4 watts RMS max but still tweeking things. I plan to post
a schematic on the binaries later for comments/criticism.

Cheers,
Roger







Thanks

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


wrote:

Anyone know of design info for this type of splitter.
I have one up and running on the bench using a 12AX7 @ 300V &
1.2mA each
side
but I can't seem to make it DC (150V / 168V) balance. Should I
worry
about
the DC balance if the AC
is balanced? In info apprecaited.

Thanks
RonL

Please find an example of an LTP with CCS in the amp at

http://www.turneraudio.com.au/htmlwe...0ulabinteg.htm

If the RLs to each side of the pair are equal, output signal also
will be.
But the dc anode voltage won't ever be exactly the same, since no
tubes
are
exactly
matched for bias conditions.

The tubes could be quite different, one could be a 1/2 12AU7, the
the other a 1/2 6SN7 triode and as long as the RLs are equal
and the CCS is an extremely high resistance, such as in the
schematic I have refered you to,
ac balance will be ok even though dc balance is not good.

But using dissimilar tubes to each 1/2 of an LTP
results in 2H distortion that is normally cancelled away when
each
1/2 is matched to the other in terms of Ra, gm, and µ.

Patrick Turner.






  #9   Report Post  
Engineer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


wrote:

Thats what I wanted to hear!. As long as the AC is balanced. (most
important)
I wasn't sure if the DC should be balanced also.


If the LTP is a twin triode, or a low µ triode like the 12AU7, 6CG7,
6SN7,
then you should find the dc balance very close with most tubes that
test well.

Maybe you have a 6SL7, or 12AX7, 12AY7, 12AT7,
and the gain is higher, so expect more difference in Ea for the
two triodes.
Usually is never more than 10V difference.
The biasing of each LTP triode shouldn't use greater than 470k grid
R
lest the tiny grid current that flows develops a voltage which can
effect the
quiescent anode volts, ( Ea ).

Direct coupled LTPs like in a Mullard 520 etc have the first triode
direct coupled to the anode of the input tube, then a 1M or more
is taken to the second triode grid which is grounded via a 0.1uF or
suchlike.
Sometimes there is a slight dc voltage across the 1M, so this dc
unbalances the
LTP.

BTW, for the Mullard circuit to be properly ac balanced
while a common cathode R of say 22k is used from cathodes to 0V,
the usual way to achieve balance is to adjust the value of the DC
carrying RL
to each triode until balance is achieved.
This usually upsets the dc balance which does not matter much
in most amps because the LTP will clip well after the output stage
clips.

But the LTP with a CCS allows much easier setting up with equal RL
values
which are cheaply available at 1% tolerances or better.
Its the RL values which automatically balance the LTP with a CCS
that makes it such an attractive gain block.

Just make sure you have a high impedance meter for
measuring the outputs and dcV values; it should be
better than 9M input Z to the meter.
Most digital meters are like this and read ok between 20Hz and 1
kHz.
Above 1kHz, digital meter signal volt readings roll off due to the
capacitance
of the meter.

Patrick Turner.

I've nearly completed a "spares box" 10 watt amplifier design (EF86,
6SN7, 2 x 6V6) that uses a "Mullard 5-10" EF86 circuit (120K, 1.8K +
100 ohms, etc), directly coupled (108 VDC) to g1 of the first 1/2
6SN7, with a CC circuit in cathode. The latter is an MJE340
transistor with a 5.6 Kohm emitter resistor and a +25 volt (approx) DC
reference to the base for 4.3 mA CC (2.15 mA for each 1/2 6SN7 with
33Kohms on each plate.)

DC balance is close to perfect and drive to 6V6's very balanced.

Getting 10.4 watts RMS max but still tweeking things. I plan to post
a schematic on the binaries later for comments/criticism.

Cheers,
Roger

(snip)


  #10   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Patrick and group:
I've tried the MJE340 setup and it works great. I'm going to
try the SuperTex LR8 http://www.supertex.com/pdf/datasheets/LR8.pdf
in a CCS mode to see if I can get a little better PSRR. The MJE340 that
Patrick uses works good,
but thr LR8 in a nice TO92 package would be a little neater. Anybody use any
of these.?

RonL




  #11   Report Post  
Chris Hornbeck
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:04:56 GMT, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

There are two ways. One is to apply a bias voltage to one of the LTP
grids. Assumes previous stage is not direct coupled. Never seen it
done.

The other way is to use a pot, wiper to CCS and legs to cathodes.
This should be of the least value necessary to allow the adjustment
you need. You don't give your anode loads so you'll have to work it
out yourself, or experiment with fixed resistors. Possibly start
around 100R between one cathode and CCS. When you get it about
right, sub for a pot, allowing some extra R for future adjustment.


Another way, sometimes done in mic preamp inputs
in the solid-state world is to use two CCS's, and
couple the cathodes together with either a resistor
or a series resistor and (large) capacitor.

Can't really see the need in this case. But fun
to speculate.

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
  #12   Report Post  
Patrick Turner
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Ian Iveson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote

The guy does not require the DC balance to be exact.


None of us actually knows that. "The guy" wondered about it, you
assumed it, and let's hope you are right in this case. Wouldn't have
worked in my amp.

One way to get DC balance is to have *two* CCS so
that one is used for each cathode of the LTP.
Then one uses a cap between the cathodes for signal shunting.


Hadn't considered mentioning that idea.

You would need a large value, non-polar cap. Never seen it done.
Works in theory, but puts a cap where it otherwise wouldn't be
necessary. Nice idea, but you need to give it more thought.


Well it works well.
At DC the separate CCS act like a high value cathode resistors
which makes the anode voltage stay very stable.





two CCS are effectively in parallel, but since their actual finite
resistance is over 20Mohms, its ok to parallel them this way


Why shouldn't it be? You are confusing issues. CCS are OK in
parallel, not in series. CVS is vice-versa. And they are not in
parallel anyway because they are DC, and are isolated by a cap.
Maybe there is another interpretation of what you mean to say?


The two CCS are effectively in parallel as far as signal working is
concerned.
Nothing else was meant or implied.





but yet make sure the DC in each anode RL is within 0.1% all the
time.


Whatever. If used to adjust bias in following stage, another
criterion applies.

The other way is to use a pot, wiper to CCS and legs to cathodes.


But then you have a pot in the signal path.


100R or so between the cathodes isn't much, but the purist in me
doesn't like it either even though it's only a spot of
series-derived nfb equally applied to both sides. I cannot see a
"purist" solution myself...between us we have outlined *every*
logical possibility. It's a shame for the purist, who otherwise
might be attracted to a chain of dc coupled ltp for a fully-balanced
amp.

Plot gets a bit more complicated still if you wish to use global nfb
for such an amp.


with a dual CCS in an LTP and direct coupling to an output stage,
things sure do get complex with the need to have the anode
dc voltage at about the output stage grid bias voltages,
so a negative supply is needed.

I cannot see any reason for such complexity, since couping
output tube grids to cathodes is a pita if anything goes wrong.

Anyway, with a pair of paralleled CCS, the gain of the
LTP falls to near zero at DC because the cap coupling the cathodes
becomes an open circuit at VLF, but yet there is no ultimate
90 degree phase shift, so if anything the cap across cathodes
may not jepodize the LF stability with NFB.
Just how much NFB is also important.

I have never felt a need or wanton desire to build such an amp
with an LTP with dual CCS and a cap coupling to tie the cathodes
together.



Rest of your contribution is quite correct.


Good to see you not bitching about something this time.

Patrick Turner.



cheers, Ian

in message ...

This should be of the least value necessary to allow the
adjustment
you need. You don't give your anode loads so you'll have to work
it
out yourself, or experiment with fixed resistors. Possibly start
around 100R between one cathode and CCS. When you get it about
right, sub for a pot, allowing some extra R for future
adjustment.


This is ok until the next time the tubes are changed, and a reset
for DC
balance has to be attained.

The twin CCS method avoids this.

If you also vary one of the anode loads to achieve AC balance,
then
you will need to readjust the cathode pot to compensate.


For an LTP with a single CCS with a an adjust pot for DC balance,
the signal output will remain constant if the anode RL remain the
same.
The anode RL is the DC supply resistor and the cap coupled
following
grid bias resistor of the next stage in parallel.

Once the use of an LTP is addopted, the only way to vary the
output amplitudes is to vary the RLs.
But why?
The only reason would be to minimise thd for a given
value of power; some slight imbalance of signals will cancel
the 2H produced by an unmatched pair of output tubes.
Trouble is that if you adjust for least 2H at 2 watts, the
adjustment
won't be right for 0.2 watts or 10 watts, or 50 watts.

So use nice output tubes and you should find
exactly balanced drive to give the lowest thd and the sweetest
sound.


If there's 1.2mA each side how come it's not DC balanced? What
you've written doesn't quite add up.


Well yes, but maybe if the RL is 100k, then to get an 18V
difference
in Ea, the current difference is only 0.18mA.

I think he meant that he has a *nominal 1.2mA per side,
so he must have a nominal 2.4mA in the CCS.

Patrick Turner.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Pair of CDT Audio HD-63 Braxials AND a Pair of CDT Audio HD-62's [email protected] Car Audio 0 September 14th 05 05:12 AM
Quad ESLs - 57 or 63? John Smith Vacuum Tubes 124 May 11th 05 12:25 AM
FS: Audio Cables & Adapter Cables [email protected] Pro Audio 0 February 28th 05 05:35 PM
2nd Classical mic pair for location work NJI Pro Audio 0 October 8th 03 07:42 PM
wrap test Mike Pro Audio 14 September 7th 03 05:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:35 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"