Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Brian
 
Posts: n/a
Default Positive Feedback in P-P 6V6 Amp

I have an early Knight kit amplifier that uses push-pull 6V6s driven
by two 6SN7s, with a 6SL7 for the phono stage. In tracing out the
circuit I noticed that in addition to the global feedback from the
output-transformer secondary, there was a feedback path from the grid
of one 6V6 to a 6SN7 cathode. The feedback signal originates at the
220k-ohm 6V6 grid resistor, passes through a 1-megohm resistor, and
winds up at the 4.7k-ohm 6SN7 cathode resistor. I couldn't figure out
why this feedback path was there, particularly since the signal at the
6V6 grid would be expected to be somewhat distorted, being inside the
global feedback loop. The feedback path causes about a half-volt
offset at the 6V6 grid (the 6V6 cathodes are at about 20 volts), so
there ought to be a good reason to incur this error voltage. I
disconnected the 1-meg resistor and the overall gain decreased by 3
dB, indicating positive feedback. The gain came back up 3 dB when I
bypassed to ground the cathode where the feedback had gone.

My guess is that the purpose of this feedback path is to increase the
gain of the 6SN7 stage, basically eliminating an electrolytic bypass
at the cost of a 1-meg resistor. Is this right? I've disconnected the
feedback because I need neither the added gain nor the output bias
asymmetry.

Brian
  #2   Report Post  
jim
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brian" wrote in message
om...
I have an early Knight kit amplifier that uses push-pull 6V6s driven
by two 6SN7s, with a 6SL7 for the phono stage. In tracing out the
circuit I noticed that in addition to the global feedback from the
output-transformer secondary, there was a feedback path from the grid
of one 6V6 to a 6SN7 cathode. The feedback signal originates at the
220k-ohm 6V6 grid resistor, passes through a 1-megohm resistor, and
winds up at the 4.7k-ohm 6SN7 cathode resistor. I couldn't figure out
why this feedback path was there, particularly since the signal at the
6V6 grid would be expected to be somewhat distorted, being inside the
global feedback loop. The feedback path causes about a half-volt
offset at the 6V6 grid (the 6V6 cathodes are at about 20 volts), so
there ought to be a good reason to incur this error voltage. I
disconnected the 1-meg resistor and the overall gain decreased by 3
dB, indicating positive feedback. The gain came back up 3 dB when I
bypassed to ground the cathode where the feedback had gone.

My guess is that the purpose of this feedback path is to increase the
gain of the 6SN7 stage, basically eliminating an electrolytic bypass
at the cost of a 1-meg resistor. Is this right? I've disconnected the
feedback because I need neither the added gain nor the output bias
asymmetry.

Brian



I've seen this in done in a few '60s schematics and 'Glass Audio' articles.
How do you get the ultimate out of as few valves as possible ??
Global NFB reduces distortion but decreases gain.. Add PFB at the OP valve
drivers. You get the gain back and the global NFB keeps the distortion
low...

You balance one against the other...

Theory says it works. Reality says it's unstable and unpredictable.

kind regards
jim


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

"jim" wrote

I've seen this in done in a few '60s schematics and 'Glass Audio'

articles.
How do you get the ultimate out of as few valves as possible ??
Global NFB reduces distortion but decreases gain.. Add PFB at the

OP valve
drivers. You get the gain back and the global NFB keeps the

distortion
low...

You balance one against the other...

Theory says it works. Reality says it's unstable and

unpredictable.


The quad 2 uses local +ve fb to one half of the floating paraphase
splitter, and -ve to the other half, and -ve overall. It's British.
Must be a good thing.

cheers, Ian



  #4   Report Post  
John Byrns
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Ian
Iveson" wrote:

The quad 2 uses local +ve fb to one half of the floating paraphase
splitter, and -ve to the other half, and -ve overall. It's British.
Must be a good thing.


As near as I can see the Quad II uses an ordinary paraphase phase
inverter, not a "floating paraphase" phase inverter? I also can't see any
large use of positive feedback in the Quad IIcircuit. I see a very small
incidental amount of positive feedback that appears to be a side effect of
the way the loop feedback is connected.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/
  #5   Report Post  
Ian Iveson
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Byrns" wrote

As near as I can see the Quad II uses an ordinary paraphase phase
inverter, not a "floating paraphase" phase inverter? I also can't

see any
large use of positive feedback in the Quad IIcircuit. I see a

very small
incidental amount of positive feedback that appears to be a side

effect of
the way the loop feedback is connected.


Hmm, maybe, just hovering perhaps. Certainly not "ordinary", because
the two valves are coupled in a host of different ways. Just been
looking it up. I was wrong about the "local". Here's the circuit in
case anyone doesn't know it:

http://www.triodeel.com/quad2.gif

I forget which end of the floating paraphase is supposed to float. I
think it's something of a misnomer anyway.

The circuit shows unbypassed 680 + 100 ohms common to the coupled
cathodes. Feedback from the secondary winding is applied to the
junction of those two resistors, so it appears as -ve to valve 1 and
+ve to valve 2.

Looking at the input of the power stage, the grids are connected via
680k to either side of a single 2k8. There is no central ground but
rather this 2k8 floats, with one end connected to valve 2 grid, and
the other to same cathode junction as the feedback. OK, so that's
not floating much, because there is a low resistance path to ground
via the feedback winding in parallel with the 100ohms, but the
floating paraphase is never really floating is it?

When the splitter is balanced, the signal either side of that 2k8
resistor must be equal and opposite. It may seem that the +ve fb to
V2 cathode is matched by the -ve fb to its grid.

But how do you explain how come 2k8 is such a small proportion of
680k? What is the gain of V2, and how does it compare to V1?
Remember that the grid signal for V2 is developed across just half
of that 2k8, since ac ground is half-way along it.

Looking for some words from my paltry library, I find JL Hood
"...gain of V2...rather more than twice than that which would have
been expected". Expected, that is, by someone not seeing the +ve fb,
he says. Irritatingly, he fails to mention the link between the
feedback and that 2k8 resistor. It requires a fair amount of maths
to work out the whole explanation, but the gain of V2 is
indisputably much higher than it could be without +ve fb...that fact
doesn't take too much calculation.

Oh...and the screens are floating with no reference at all to
ground. Shouldn't I get half a point for that?

cheers, Ian





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



Brian wrote:

I have an early Knight kit amplifier that uses push-pull 6V6s driven
by two 6SN7s, with a 6SL7 for the phono stage. In tracing out the
circuit I noticed that in addition to the global feedback from the
output-transformer secondary, there was a feedback path from the grid
of one 6V6 to a 6SN7 cathode. The feedback signal originates at the
220k-ohm 6V6 grid resistor, passes through a 1-megohm resistor, and
winds up at the 4.7k-ohm 6SN7 cathode resistor. I couldn't figure out
why this feedback path was there, particularly since the signal at the
6V6 grid would be expected to be somewhat distorted, being inside the
global feedback loop. The feedback path causes about a half-volt
offset at the 6V6 grid (the 6V6 cathodes are at about 20 volts), so
there ought to be a good reason to incur this error voltage. I
disconnected the 1-meg resistor and the overall gain decreased by 3
dB, indicating positive feedback. The gain came back up 3 dB when I
bypassed to ground the cathode where the feedback had gone.

My guess is that the purpose of this feedback path is to increase the
gain of the 6SN7 stage, basically eliminating an electrolytic bypass
at the cost of a 1-meg resistor. Is this right? I've disconnected the
feedback because I need neither the added gain nor the output bias
asymmetry.

Brian


There is an example of a positive voltage feedback loop
in a 6V6 PP amp in RDH4, where the gain of the 6SN7 driver stage is
boosted
4 times, or 12 dB, so that the amount of globally applied FB is
effectively increased 12 dB, and thus thd/imd reduced well
below what would be predicted by global FB use alone.
Gain after FB is applied, in dB = 20 x log [ A / ( 1 + {A x B } ) .
where A is the open loop gain without FB, and B is the fraction of the
output
voltage fed back to the input.
If A = 100, and B = 0.1 the FB = 19.17 dB.
The gain reduction is from 100 to 9.09, and distortion is also reduced
by around this amount.
If A = 400, and B = 0.1, the FB = 19.78 dB,
but the gain reduction
is from 400 to 9.75, a larger gain reduction,
and so you get less thd.

Its not all roses though, as the gain boost from internally boosting the
voltage gain of the drive amp makes it less stable, and increases its
distortions.
But the main thd in most amps is due to non linearity in the the output
stage,
by a factor of 1 : 3, so the extra driver thd is insignificant, and the
thd at tha amp output is reduced more by PVFB than it is increased.

I prefer to make the amp substantially linear before any FB is applied,
and then only NFB is required, and none of the side effects of positive FB

emerge, so I have never used PFB.

There would be those who would argue about the subjective ruination
of the sound with the use of all these loopy loops of FB,
back and forth and I leave them to argue with each other.

Patrick Turner.



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



Ian Iveson wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote

As near as I can see the Quad II uses an ordinary paraphase phase
inverter, not a "floating paraphase" phase inverter? I also can't

see any
large use of positive feedback in the Quad IIcircuit. I see a

very small
incidental amount of positive feedback that appears to be a side

effect of
the way the loop feedback is connected.


Hmm, maybe, just hovering perhaps. Certainly not "ordinary", because
the two valves are coupled in a host of different ways. Just been
looking it up. I was wrong about the "local". Here's the circuit in
case anyone doesn't know it:

http://www.triodeel.com/quad2.gif

I forget which end of the floating paraphase is supposed to float. I
think it's something of a misnomer anyway.

The circuit shows unbypassed 680 + 100 ohms common to the coupled
cathodes. Feedback from the secondary winding is applied to the
junction of those two resistors, so it appears as -ve to valve 1 and
+ve to valve 2.

Looking at the input of the power stage, the grids are connected via
680k to either side of a single 2k8. There is no central ground but
rather this 2k8 floats, with one end connected to valve 2 grid, and
the other to same cathode junction as the feedback. OK, so that's
not floating much, because there is a low resistance path to ground
via the feedback winding in parallel with the 100ohms, but the
floating paraphase is never really floating is it?

When the splitter is balanced, the signal either side of that 2k8
resistor must be equal and opposite. It may seem that the +ve fb to
V2 cathode is matched by the -ve fb to its grid.

But how do you explain how come 2k8 is such a small proportion of
680k? What is the gain of V2, and how does it compare to V1?
Remember that the grid signal for V2 is developed across just half
of that 2k8, since ac ground is half-way along it.

Looking for some words from my paltry library, I find JL Hood
"...gain of V2...rather more than twice than that which would have
been expected". Expected, that is, by someone not seeing the +ve fb,
he says. Irritatingly, he fails to mention the link between the
feedback and that 2k8 resistor. It requires a fair amount of maths
to work out the whole explanation, but the gain of V2 is
indisputably much higher than it could be without +ve fb...that fact
doesn't take too much calculation.

Oh...and the screens are floating with no reference at all to
ground. Shouldn't I get half a point for that?

cheers, Ian


The Quad has a paraphase PI with each EF86 with a gain of around 200.

The instataneous AV at various points around the circuit are as
follows:-

V3 anode, +160v, grid -40 = anode signal of V1,
V4 anode, -160v, grid +40 = anode signal of V2,
Feedback signal at top of R10 = +1.2v
Signal at top of 2.7 k = +1.04 approx.
Vg-k both V1&2 = approx 0.2v,
so input voltage g-g = 0.4 v,
so total input voltage = v at R10 + 0.4 = approx 1.6 v.

Only about 0.16v is across the 2.7k.

Global FB is applied to the second grid of the PI,
and fully to the bottom of the common Rk of R4, 680 ohms,
thus bootstrapping the input stage, or allowing
whati is the normal grounding point of the of whole of the input stage
including the
bias R for the output tubes to be in series with the AV input signal.
In effect, the FB is applied in common mode,
but the differential signal between input and fed back signal is all
that is amplified.
I think the cuicuit would work OK without the 2.7k, but
then you have a balanced short tail pair, which would be slightly
unbalanced, if driven more at one side than the other, so
to compensate, there is that 2.7k.

Once there, the 2.7 k helps the selfbalancing of these sorts of stages.

The pentode inputs are in class A, and the 2H screen currents cancel,
and so no need to reference the screens to the common cathode, although
this could be done.

A more modern "pure" way of doing this circuit is to have a CCS
tail for the EF86, and take the FB
straight to the second input grid of V2, and have the bias R for the
output tubes taken to ground.

I think the modern way would be better, and easy to implement,
with a single fet CCS, but in 1953, there were no fets.
And when there were fets, people were throwing out tubes.

Patrick Turner.


  #8   Report Post  
Brian
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Let me clarify the circuit: The negative feedback from the
output-transformer secondary goes to the stage that precedes the phase
splitter, in the usual way. The positive feedback that originates at a
6V6 grid goes to the stage that precedes the stage where the negative
feedback is applied. The loops are not nested. This is why I mentioned
that the positive feedback applies a somewhat distorted signal, since
that signal is taken from within the negative-feedback loop but
applied outside it.

Weird, huh?

Brian
  #9   Report Post  
Jon Yaeger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brian,

This is a long shot . . . the positive feedback may be there to increase
gain (doubtful?) but maybe it's a form of "pre-distortion" if it occurs 180
degrees out of phase from the output. The purpose of "pre-distortion" is to
lower overall distortion, but the audiophool in me shudders from the very
concept.

Erno Borbely employed it in an article in Glass Audio he wrote about an SE
design (1996, Vol.8, No. 5).

Just a guess . . . .

Jon

From: (Brian)
Organization:
http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tubes
Date: 24 Nov 2003 21:44:18 -0800
Subject: Positive Feedback in P-P 6V6 Amp

Let me clarify the circuit: The negative feedback from the
output-transformer secondary goes to the stage that precedes the phase
splitter, in the usual way. The positive feedback that originates at a
6V6 grid goes to the stage that precedes the stage where the negative
feedback is applied. The loops are not nested. This is why I mentioned
that the positive feedback applies a somewhat distorted signal, since
that signal is taken from within the negative-feedback loop but
applied outside it.

Weird, huh?

Brian


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



Brian wrote:

Let me clarify the circuit: The negative feedback from the
output-transformer secondary goes to the stage that precedes the phase
splitter, in the usual way. The positive feedback that originates at a
6V6 grid goes to the stage that precedes the stage where the negative
feedback is applied. The loops are not nested. This is why I mentioned
that the positive feedback applies a somewhat distorted signal, since
that signal is taken from within the negative-feedback loop but
applied outside it.

Weird, huh?


Sounds like "accountant inspired design synergy" , ( AIDS ) where
he was loathe to use another tube, or he got a bargain lot price on low
gain tubes.

Accountants prefer the the sound of money, not music.

Patrick Turner.



Brian




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



Jon Yaeger wrote:

Brian,

This is a long shot . . . the positive feedback may be there to increase
gain (doubtful?) but maybe it's a form of "pre-distortion" if it occurs 180
degrees out of phase from the output. The purpose of "pre-distortion" is to
lower overall distortion, but the audiophool in me shudders from the very
concept.

Erno Borbely employed it in an article in Glass Audio he wrote about an SE
design (1996, Vol.8, No. 5).

Just a guess . . . .


I'd like to see a schematic of this amp posted at ABSE or somewhere,
so we could see it.

The error signal contains the inverse of the distortion in the output.
So it could be applied in some way to a preceeding gain stage,
and thus cancel the natural open loop distortions of the amp.
Perhaps it ain't as wacky as it seems.
But not an audiophile solution, more that of a pure engineer,
ie, a mean and tricky solution to a tecnical problem.
I wonder how stable this amp is with no R load at the output,
and just a pure capacitance, say 0.22 uF, which can make many
FB amps oscillate strongly at some F above the AF band..

Patrick Turner.




Jon

From: (Brian)
Organization:
http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tubes
Date: 24 Nov 2003 21:44:18 -0800
Subject: Positive Feedback in P-P 6V6 Amp

Let me clarify the circuit: The negative feedback from the
output-transformer secondary goes to the stage that precedes the phase
splitter, in the usual way. The positive feedback that originates at a
6V6 grid goes to the stage that precedes the stage where the negative
feedback is applied. The loops are not nested. This is why I mentioned
that the positive feedback applies a somewhat distorted signal, since
that signal is taken from within the negative-feedback loop but
applied outside it.

Weird, huh?

Brian


  #12   Report Post  
jim
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
...
"jim" wrote

I've seen this in done in a few '60s schematics and 'Glass Audio'

articles.
How do you get the ultimate out of as few valves as possible ??
Global NFB reduces distortion but decreases gain.. Add PFB at the

OP valve
drivers. You get the gain back and the global NFB keeps the

distortion
low...

You balance one against the other...

Theory says it works. Reality says it's unstable and

unpredictable.


The quad 2 uses local +ve fb to one half of the floating paraphase
splitter, and -ve to the other half, and -ve overall. It's British.
Must be a good thing.

cheers, Ian



The Austin Allegro was British too ! Hi, Ian....
I have a reprint of a Glass Audio article somewhere headed 'A balanced
feedback amplifier'
PP EL84s if I remember right. A Williamson .The author achieved high
sensitivity by making the PFB adjustable using a preset
pot, winding it up until the amp oscillated and then backing it off. Some
impressive claims were made for the circuit but no details of the test
procedures or the effect of different output loads were mentioned
Analysis of the paraphase is somewhat difficult (particularly for me ! ) It
seems to get drawn in a number of different ways, as well. Taking a
proportion of the output of V1 to drive V2 with an opposite phase signal
using a resistance divider proportioned to be equal to the gain of V1 is
pretty obvious but when it becomes floating and self balancing, these
unequal resistances disappear. Using equal resistances, V2 grid is driven
by the difference between the two outputs, which appears across the common
resistor which ties V2 grid down to earth. Balance should therefore be as
accurate as the matching of the two resistors. Differences in the
characteristics of the two triodes should theoretically be cancelled out
too. HT is not wasted, as it is across the tail resistor of an LTP, and the
paraphase should therefore be capable of producing larger output signals.
Remember, I know bugger all, so such an analysis is probably completely
wrong
kind regards
jim




  #13   Report Post  
Brian
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'd like to see a schematic of this amp posted at ABSE or somewhere,
so we could see it.



I wish I had a diagram. This is an early Knight kit, deco styling, no
model number, just says "KNIGHT HI-FI 10 WATT AMPLIFIER." Works fine,
with or without the funny feedback.

Since the gain effect of the funny feedback is only 3 dB, I'm still
guessing that it is simply intended as a cheap way to bypass a cathode
resistor. Bypassing that stage with an actual capacitor yields the
same gain increase.

Next time I have the amp out, I'll run it through my spectrum analyzer
and see whether the feedback affects distortion. I couldn't see any
time-domain effects on the sine wave I was using to determine the
feedback gain effect.

Brian
  #14   Report Post  
Patrick Turner
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Brian wrote:

I'd like to see a schematic of this amp posted at ABSE or somewhere,
so we could see it.


I wish I had a diagram. This is an early Knight kit, deco styling, no
model number, just says "KNIGHT HI-FI 10 WATT AMPLIFIER." Works fine,
with or without the funny feedback.

Since the gain effect of the funny feedback is only 3 dB, I'm still
guessing that it is simply intended as a cheap way to bypass a cathode
resistor. Bypassing that stage with an actual capacitor yields the
same gain increase.

Next time I have the amp out, I'll run it through my spectrum analyzer
and see whether the feedback affects distortion. I couldn't see any
time-domain effects on the sine wave I was using to determine the
feedback gain effect.

Brian


Part of good tube craft and service work on many items of
electronics for me
includes tracing out the schematic in my work book,
and this makes it clear what the total picture of the amp looks like,
so I can calculate and draw in all the instantaneous working signal
voltages
with their approximate phase relative to the input.
Its slow and laborious, but this works for me,
so I under stand what the feedback is achieveing
in empiracle terms, and if it appears to be what I think
is good practice, then all is well.
I can then share this with others,
with a scan and send, but only if I have kept the drawing neat enough.

That measuring with the analysing might well be interesting.

Patrick Turner.



  #15   Report Post  
John Byrns
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Ian
Iveson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote

As near as I can see the Quad II uses an ordinary paraphase phase
inverter, not a "floating paraphase" phase inverter? I also can't

see any
large use of positive feedback in the Quad IIcircuit. I see a

very small
incidental amount of positive feedback that appears to be a side

effect of
the way the loop feedback is connected.


Hmm, maybe, just hovering perhaps. Certainly not "ordinary", because
the two valves are coupled in a host of different ways. Just been
looking it up. I was wrong about the "local". Here's the circuit in
case anyone doesn't know it:

http://www.triodeel.com/quad2.gif

I forget which end of the floating paraphase is supposed to float. I
think it's something of a misnomer anyway.


I may not have the precise definition of "floating paraphase" vs. ordinary
"paraphase" phase inverter, but I consider the ordinary "paraphase" phase
inverter to be one where the phase inverter valve runs open loop, with a
divider at its input to knock the gain down to -1, while I consider the
"floating paraphase" to be one that uses the phase inverter valve in a
op-amp type configuration with a closed loop gain of -1. The Quad II
circuit topology would fit the latter description, except that the 100 Ohm
resistor at the common point is so small that it effectively becomes an
ordinary "paraphase" phase inverter, if this resistor were 1000 times
larger, then it would be a "floating paraphase" in my book.

The circuit shows unbypassed 680 + 100 ohms common to the coupled
cathodes. Feedback from the secondary winding is applied to the
junction of those two resistors, so it appears as -ve to valve 1 and
+ve to valve 2.


It appears as -ve to the upper valve, but there is effectively no
feedback, either -ve or +ve to the lower valve because the feedback signal
is also applied to the grid virtually undiminished by passing backwards
through grid voltage divider for the "paraphase" phase inverter.

There is some positive feedback to the grid of the lower output valve, and
negative feedback to the grid of the upper output valve that I didn't
notice before, don't know how much feedback occurs around these loops from
the output transformer to the grids of the output valves, whether it is
significant, or is relatively insignificant? These feedback paths look
like a side effect of the main negative feedback scheme that couldn't be
easily eliminated like the positive feedback to the lower phase inverter
valve was.

Looking at the input of the power stage, the grids are connected via
680k to either side of a single 2k8. There is no central ground but
rather this 2k8 floats, with one end connected to valve 2 grid, and
the other to same cathode junction as the feedback. OK, so that's
not floating much, because there is a low resistance path to ground
via the feedback winding in parallel with the 100ohms, but the
floating paraphase is never really floating is it?


It is rarely completely floating, there is one rarely used circuit
configuration where it is completely floating, but in most circuits it is
floating for all practical purposes. In the Quad circuit the junction is
effectively grounded by the 100 Ohm resistor the feedback is applied
across, effectively making it an ordinary "paraphase" not a "floating
paraphase".

When the splitter is balanced, the signal either side of that 2k8
resistor must be equal and opposite. It may seem that the +ve fb to
V2 cathode is matched by the -ve fb to its grid.

But how do you explain how come 2k8 is such a small proportion of
680k? What is the gain of V2, and how does it compare to V1?
Remember that the grid signal for V2 is developed across just half
of that 2k8, since ac ground is half-way along it.


I don't see any AC ground half way along the 2.7 k resistor, all I see is
the bottom end of the 2.7 k resistor grounded by a 100 Ohm resistor. That
makes the loss for the feedback signal around the inverter valve something
like a factor of 0.00015, while the gain of the valve is 360 at the very
most, hardly a combination that would make a very good unity gain
inverter, especially when you consider that the input signal to the
inverter valve is scaled by about 0.004 at the input, about right for the
likely actual gain of the inverter valve operating as an ordinary
"paraphase" phase inverter.

Looking for some words from my paltry library, I find JL Hood
"...gain of V2...rather more than twice than that which would have
been expected". Expected, that is, by someone not seeing the +ve fb,
he says. Irritatingly, he fails to mention the link between the
feedback and that 2k8 resistor. It requires a fair amount of maths
to work out the whole explanation, but the gain of V2 is
indisputably much higher than it could be without +ve fb...that fact
doesn't take too much calculation.


I don't follow any of that reasoning, it doesn't ring true either.

Oh...and the screens are floating with no reference at all to
ground. Shouldn't I get half a point for that?


Yes, certainly, that's an interesting detail.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/


  #16   Report Post  
Brian
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I hooked up my HP 141T/8552B/8556A spectrum analyzer to the push-pull
6V6 amp today and measured the following harmonic levels at 10 volts
P-P output (1.5 watts) into 8 ohms:

2nd 3rd
feedback -64 -52 dB
no feedback -55 -48

So not only does the unusual feedback path increase the overall gain 3
dB, it lowers the distortion.

Brian
  #17   Report Post  
doug
 
Posts: n/a
Default

very cool stuff
nice to have the tools to measure it with too huh?

Doug

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
I hooked up my HP 141T/8552B/8556A spectrum analyzer to the push-pull
6V6 amp today and measured the following harmonic levels at 10 volts
P-P output (1.5 watts) into 8 ohms:

2nd 3rd
feedback -64 -52 dB
no feedback -55 -48

So not only does the unusual feedback path increase the overall gain 3
dB, it lowers the distortion.

Brian



  #18   Report Post  
Ruud Broens
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"doug" wrote in message
news:UFLxb.513594$6C4.282925@pd7tw1no...
: very cool stuff
: nice to have the tools to measure it with too huh?
:
: Doug

Yep, Doug, all true
it's da tools puttin' da smile
on the scientists' face
even on
a rany day
Rudy
~~~~
: "Brian" wrote in message
: om...
: I hooked up my HP 141T/8552B/8556A spectrum analyzer to the push-pull
: 6V6 amp today and measured the following harmonic levels at 10 volts
: P-P output (1.5 watts) into 8 ohms:
:
: 2nd 3rd
: feedback -64 -52 dB
: no feedback -55 -48
:
: So not only does the unusual feedback path increase the overall gain 3
: dB, it lowers the distortion.
:
: Brian
:
:


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



Ruud Broens wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
news:UFLxb.513594$6C4.282925@pd7tw1no...
: very cool stuff
: nice to have the tools to measure it with too huh?
:
: Doug

Yep, Doug, all true
it's da tools puttin' da smile
on the scientists' face
even on
a rany day
Rudy


And some would wonder what change would the
positive feedback make on the sound.

Patrick Turner.


~~~~
: "Brian" wrote in message
: om...
: I hooked up my HP 141T/8552B/8556A spectrum analyzer to the push-pull
: 6V6 amp today and measured the following harmonic levels at 10 volts
: P-P output (1.5 watts) into 8 ohms:
:
: 2nd 3rd
: feedback -64 -52 dB
: no feedback -55 -48
:
: So not only does the unusual feedback path increase the overall gain 3
: dB, it lowers the distortion.
:
: Brian
:
:


  #20   Report Post  
Ruud Broens
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
:
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
:
: "doug" wrote in message
: news:UFLxb.513594$6C4.282925@pd7tw1no...
: : very cool stuff
: : nice to have the tools to measure it with too huh?
: :
: : Doug
:
: Yep, Doug, all true
: it's da tools puttin' da smile
: on the scientists' face
: even on
: a rany day
: Rudy
:
: And some would wonder what change would the
: positive feedback make on the sound.
:
: Patrick Turner.
:
:
Now, Patrick, i could say something very interesting
actually about that. but no, waaayy OT, they say,
how sad
Rudy




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




:
: And some would wonder what change would the
: positive feedback make on the sound.
:
: Patrick Turner.
:
:
Now, Patrick, i could say something very interesting
actually about that. but no, waaayy OT, they say,
how sad
Rudy


How someone percieves sound is able to be described here.
You might get a few holes in you backside from buckshot,
But not from me.

Patrick Turner.


  #22   Report Post  
Ruud Broens
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
:
:
:
: :
: : And some would wonder what change would the
: : positive feedback make on the sound.
: :
: : Patrick Turner.
: :
: :
: Now, Patrick, i could say something very interesting
: actually about that. but no, waaayy OT, they say,
: how sad
: Rudy
:
: How someone percieves sound is able to be described here.
: You might get a few holes in you backside from buckshot,
: But not from me.
:
: Patrick Turner.
:
he, am i pleasant guy in real life, 2.

snippet of research, barely 30 min ago:

entering shop. ask Do you sell Q10 ?
guy gets bottle
i want the most expensive bottle
guy, puzzled, put the cheap stuff back,
gets me the good stuff

o, ok, another ll'll 'venture, then:

supermarket. want sturdy bag for big bottle bought
none avail at check-out
woman standing behind in line has one
" i offer 5 euro's for that bag (new: 8 euro's)
- o no
ok, 10 then
- no way
20 ?
- no, needin' it myself
50 ??
- no, not for even a 100 euro's
i need it myself


Rudy


  #23   Report Post  
doug
 
Posts: n/a
Default

some people havent got ears that are trained very well
and while mine are from years of live sound reinforcement and PA system
finalizing, as well as recording and mixing engineer in some interesting
projects I still like to be able to look at a plot to see whether I am
hearing 2nd harmonic distortion or 3rd harmonic or IMD or what.


Doug


"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Ruud Broens wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
news:UFLxb.513594$6C4.282925@pd7tw1no...
: very cool stuff
: nice to have the tools to measure it with too huh?
:
: Doug

Yep, Doug, all true
it's da tools puttin' da smile
on the scientists' face
even on
a rany day
Rudy


And some would wonder what change would the
positive feedback make on the sound.

Patrick Turner.


~~~~
: "Brian" wrote in message
: om...
: I hooked up my HP 141T/8552B/8556A spectrum analyzer to the

push-pull
: 6V6 amp today and measured the following harmonic levels at 10 volts
: P-P output (1.5 watts) into 8 ohms:
:
: 2nd 3rd
: feedback -64 -52 dB
: no feedback -55 -48
:
: So not only does the unusual feedback path increase the overall gain

3
: dB, it lowers the distortion.
:
: Brian
:
:




  #24   Report Post  
Ruud Broens
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"doug" wrote in message
news:i1fyb.524737$pl3.226082@pd7tw3no...
: some people havent got ears that are trained very well
: and while mine are from years of live sound reinforcement and PA system
: finalizing, as well as recording and mixing engineer in some interesting
: projects I still like to be able to look at a plot to see whether I am
: hearing 2nd harmonic distortion or 3rd harmonic or IMD or what.
:
:
: Doug
Ther's lots in the eye

but have found drastic perceptive changes
attending a Greek wine festival, hehe, be sure a that
mind you, a friend went for a ****, went missin for
like 9 hours, fell asleep in the little wooden toilet
hahahahah
Rudy
as always,
true.ly


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



doug wrote:

some people havent got ears that are trained very well
and while mine are from years of live sound reinforcement and PA system
finalizing, as well as recording and mixing engineer in some interesting
projects I still like to be able to look at a plot to see whether I am
hearing 2nd harmonic distortion or 3rd harmonic or IMD or what.


The RDH4 from 1955 spells out what distortion is audible or not,
rather better than I could, in the time and space available.
Its an interesting read.
Human ears haven't changed in 48 years.

Meanwhile, once you get the distortion low *enough*,
there is little benefit in lowering it by
adding yet another 20 dB of NFB.
But if you have 20 cascaded amplifiers each with 0.1% of noise and distortion,
then there may well be some degradation of the sound we hear.
If the sound arrives from our CD player with less than 0.1% of N&D,
then the amount added by our tube amp systems and speakers
won't change the sound much.

But what is inexplicable is the subjective sound change heard
between various amps, although we have the same source,
and low N&D, and all wev'e done is swap one tube for another
brand.
Perhaps the really subtle harmonic differences do matter a litle bit,
but as long as the sound is drinkable good wine, what's the concern?

Patrick Turner.



Doug

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Ruud Broens wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
news:UFLxb.513594$6C4.282925@pd7tw1no...
: very cool stuff
: nice to have the tools to measure it with too huh?
:
: Doug

Yep, Doug, all true
it's da tools puttin' da smile
on the scientists' face
even on
a rany day
Rudy


And some would wonder what change would the
positive feedback make on the sound.

Patrick Turner.


~~~~
: "Brian" wrote in message
: om...
: I hooked up my HP 141T/8552B/8556A spectrum analyzer to the

push-pull
: 6V6 amp today and measured the following harmonic levels at 10 volts
: P-P output (1.5 watts) into 8 ohms:
:
: 2nd 3rd
: feedback -64 -52 dB
: no feedback -55 -48
:
: So not only does the unusual feedback path increase the overall gain

3
: dB, it lowers the distortion.
:
: Brian
:
:





  #26   Report Post  
Ruud Broens
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...
:
:
:
: Its an interesting read.
: Human ears haven't changed in 48 years.

here i am again, challenging that believe
this scientist has observed, while in a nightclub
music *so* loud, walls were waving at 15 meters
kid you not
yet, ther's was this cat, standing *in* the
mighty base horns, that case, about 12 sec's
will change the ears

well, did have a test after, asked the guy for a light,,
yeah, right
Rudy
: :
: :
:
:


  #27   Report Post  
Ruud Broens
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
...
:
: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message
: ...
: :
: :
: :
: : Its an interesting read.
: : Human ears haven't changed in 48 years.
:
: here i am again, challenging that believe
: this scientist has observed, while in a nightclub
: music *so* loud, walls were waving at 15 meters
: kid you not
: yet, ther's was this cat, standing *in* the
: mighty base horns, that case, about 12 sec's
: will change the ears
:
: well, did have a test after, asked the guy for a light,,
: yeah, right
: Rudy
: : :
forgot to mention:
twas on this here night, the situation there being my master
telling me
ignorance is NOT bliss
well, maybe for 12 seconds...
Going down, under,
Rudy


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

"John Byrns" wrote

...below...


Thanks John.

My assumption was that the signal voltage either side of that 2.7k
is equal and opposite, hence the conclusion that the centre of the
resistor would be at zero volts, and therefore the signal to its
grid was derived from just half of the 2.7k.

However, long and tedious application of ohm and kirchoff reveals
that the complicated junction...where the onfb meets the 100ohms and
the 2.7k...is, erm, complicated. There is local feedback, and the
signal from V1 anode, but both are small in comparison to the onfb.
The upshot appears to be that the paraphase grid signals are in
phase, with the second about 3/4 of the first.

The magnitude of the onfb doesn't matter much, if at all, in
deciding balance. That is achieved by the 2.7k, common cathodes, and
common screens. That would suggest that it is unhelpful to think in
terms of positive feedback...as you suggest the onfb is neutral in
its effect on V2.

Do you happen to know the ratios of the secondary windings? Spent
some time looking. CF/primary turns ratio is 9.3:1, 3.2k:6 for the
speaker, but what proportion of that is the onfb winding?

Incidentally, I have several schematics and some don't show 1M
resistors from screens to HT. So they are not entirely floating
either.

It is generally refereed to as a floating paraphase, BTW, in the
various bits and bobs I have read, including Morgan Jones.

So-called experts can talk a whole heap of ****e sometimes. There
are many and various explanations of why the circuit works. My view
is that it never quite balances, but is never far out, the output
impedance of each half is more or less equal (?), and the circuit
aimed for a particular blend of harmonics, not simply a minimum.

350,000 were built, apparently. Low cost, tiny part count, huge
success, big profit. Peter Walker was a musician.

cheers, Ian

in message
...
In article ,

"Ian
Iveson" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote

As near as I can see the Quad II uses an ordinary paraphase

phase
inverter, not a "floating paraphase" phase inverter? I also

can't
see any
large use of positive feedback in the Quad IIcircuit. I see

a
very small
incidental amount of positive feedback that appears to be a

side
effect of
the way the loop feedback is connected.


Hmm, maybe, just hovering perhaps. Certainly not "ordinary",

because
the two valves are coupled in a host of different ways. Just

been
looking it up. I was wrong about the "local". Here's the circuit

in
case anyone doesn't know it:

http://www.triodeel.com/quad2.gif

I forget which end of the floating paraphase is supposed to

float. I
think it's something of a misnomer anyway.


I may not have the precise definition of "floating paraphase" vs.

ordinary
"paraphase" phase inverter, but I consider the ordinary

"paraphase" phase
inverter to be one where the phase inverter valve runs open loop,

with a
divider at its input to knock the gain down to -1, while I

consider the
"floating paraphase" to be one that uses the phase inverter valve

in a
op-amp type configuration with a closed loop gain of -1. The Quad

II
circuit topology would fit the latter description, except that the

100 Ohm
resistor at the common point is so small that it effectively

becomes an
ordinary "paraphase" phase inverter, if this resistor were 1000

times
larger, then it would be a "floating paraphase" in my book.

The circuit shows unbypassed 680 + 100 ohms common to the

coupled
cathodes. Feedback from the secondary winding is applied to the
junction of those two resistors, so it appears as -ve to valve 1

and
+ve to valve 2.


It appears as -ve to the upper valve, but there is effectively no
feedback, either -ve or +ve to the lower valve because the

feedback signal
is also applied to the grid virtually undiminished by passing

backwards
through grid voltage divider for the "paraphase" phase inverter.

There is some positive feedback to the grid of the lower output

valve, and
negative feedback to the grid of the upper output valve that I

didn't
notice before, don't know how much feedback occurs around these

loops from
the output transformer to the grids of the output valves, whether

it is
significant, or is relatively insignificant? These feedback paths

look
like a side effect of the main negative feedback scheme that

couldn't be
easily eliminated like the positive feedback to the lower phase

inverter
valve was.

Looking at the input of the power stage, the grids are connected

via
680k to either side of a single 2k8. There is no central ground

but
rather this 2k8 floats, with one end connected to valve 2 grid,

and
the other to same cathode junction as the feedback. OK, so

that's
not floating much, because there is a low resistance path to

ground
via the feedback winding in parallel with the 100ohms, but the
floating paraphase is never really floating is it?


It is rarely completely floating, there is one rarely used circuit
configuration where it is completely floating, but in most

circuits it is
floating for all practical purposes. In the Quad circuit the

junction is
effectively grounded by the 100 Ohm resistor the feedback is

applied
across, effectively making it an ordinary "paraphase" not a

"floating
paraphase".

When the splitter is balanced, the signal either side of that

2k8
resistor must be equal and opposite. It may seem that the +ve fb

to
V2 cathode is matched by the -ve fb to its grid.

But how do you explain how come 2k8 is such a small proportion

of
680k? What is the gain of V2, and how does it compare to V1?
Remember that the grid signal for V2 is developed across just

half
of that 2k8, since ac ground is half-way along it.


I don't see any AC ground half way along the 2.7 k resistor, all I

see is
the bottom end of the 2.7 k resistor grounded by a 100 Ohm

resistor. That
makes the loss for the feedback signal around the inverter valve

something
like a factor of 0.00015, while the gain of the valve is 360 at

the very
most, hardly a combination that would make a very good unity gain
inverter, especially when you consider that the input signal to

the
inverter valve is scaled by about 0.004 at the input, about right

for the
likely actual gain of the inverter valve operating as an ordinary
"paraphase" phase inverter.

Looking for some words from my paltry library, I find JL Hood
"...gain of V2...rather more than twice than that which would

have
been expected". Expected, that is, by someone not seeing the +ve

fb,
he says. Irritatingly, he fails to mention the link between the
feedback and that 2k8 resistor. It requires a fair amount of

maths
to work out the whole explanation, but the gain of V2 is
indisputably much higher than it could be without +ve fb...that

fact
doesn't take too much calculation.


I don't follow any of that reasoning, it doesn't ring true either.

Oh...and the screens are floating with no reference at all to
ground. Shouldn't I get half a point for that?


Yes, certainly, that's an interesting detail.


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/



  #29   Report Post  
Jimmy
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ian
Iveson" wrote:

The quad 2 uses local +ve fb to one half of the floating paraphase
splitter, and -ve to the other half, and -ve overall. It's British.
Must be a good thing.


As near as I can see the Quad II uses an ordinary paraphase phase
inverter, not a "floating paraphase" phase inverter? I also can't see any
large use of positive feedback in the Quad IIcircuit. I see a very small
incidental amount of positive feedback that appears to be a side effect of
the way the loop feedback is connected.


Regards,

John Byrns

Its not quite ordinary, The cathodes share a common resistor as in the
cathode coupled variety but the second tube s grid is also coupled to the
plate of the first tube in the same manner as an ordinary paraphase unit. I
think this is called an enhanced para phase. Dont think you would call the
extra connect positive feedback either. Guess it could be though ,just one
of those perspective things.

Jimmy


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 : EarMax PRO new OTL headphone amplifier / FREE PRIORITY SHIPPING bg Marketplace 105 January 25th 06 11:49 AM
Nothing but 100% Pure Audiogon Customer Satisfaction Sound Emporium Marketplace 0 February 28th 05 03:34 PM
Help with Acoustic Research AR-1 speakers wh Audio Opinions 5 January 9th 05 04:32 PM
Help with Acoustic Research GRAYMARKET SCAMS FROM SOUNDEMPORIUM CONTINUE! OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION Marketplace 4 January 9th 05 04:32 PM
100% Customer Satisfaction. Sound Emporium Marketplace 6 January 8th 05 09:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:15 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"