gapped output transformers?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

NOON

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
302
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Hi everyone. At what kind of current levels does a gapped output transformer become necessary? See the attached circuit, I'm duplicating it to add 'flavoured' direct outs to a 70's Bogen mixer and while it seems to be a standardish kind of output stage with C41 blocking DC, R93, the 2k2 resistor adds a DC path and around 5mA of DC current.
  Will this required a gapped output transformer, or is it low enough to get away with a standard output TX? If a gapped TX is considered necessary, is there any simple way of modifying the circuit to get around this?
  Cheers!
 

Attachments

  • Output.jpg
    Output.jpg
    575.8 KB · Views: 118
IF that design detail resulted in a requirement for a gapped output transformer, some other way would probably have been found.

C42 tells us that a positive DC voltage is expected at top of transformer primary..

But it's a bit strange - Are you sure the schematic reflects actual circuit?

What circuit is it?

Jakob E.
 
It's the output stage from the Bogen mixer I'm playing around with.  Actual circuit matches schematic as far as I can tell, have traced it out about 90% to check, there's definitely a slight positive DC voltage and around 5mA through the output transformer from the 2k2 resistor, hence C42 blocking DC to the meter circuit. Without the transformer attached the DC bias of the output stage goes way off.
 
I think 5mA dc probably does need a gapped transformer. If you assume the transformer is 1:1 then a 5mA rms signal current represents a power level of 15mW into a 600 ohm load which is nearly +12dBm. The schematic shows a maximum? output level of +18dBm which is about 63mW into 600 ohms and needs something like a 10mA rms current. So this dc current is about 50% of the size of the signal current which implies it will bias the transformer a good way up the BH curve if it is not gapped. So I strongly suspect it is gapped.

Cheers

ian
 
NOON said:
That's what I suspected.. any suggested workarounds to get away without a gapped transformer?

The dc resistance of the transformer will be small so it make little difference to the dc conditions of the output stage. So I suggest simply returning R93  direct to 0V instead of to the transformer.

Cheers

Ian
 
R93 is part of a bootstrap. It improves the gain and output swing of Q16. This trick was frequently done on low-cost loudspeaker amps. I had not seen it with a transformer, but that's fine.

If you are not seeking perfection, either just do it (see if the transformer gives muddy bass) or take R93 right to ground (see if the output swing is still sufficient).

If you want best of all worlds, start by seeing Q15-Q18 as "a funky op-amp" and can be replaced with a half '5532.
 
Ah, that explains it, thought it was a bit of a twist on the usual output. I'll try taking it to ground and see what happens. Definitely not interested in perfection here, otherwise I would have started with a chip! Thanks for all your help guys.
 
If you want to retain the bootstrap you can do it the 'traditional' way. You can split R93 into two halves (still connected to 0V) and connect a large value electrolytic from the output (junction of R94/R94)  to the junction of the two halves of R93.

Cheers

Ian
 
> split R93 into two halves

Yes, though the ~~1K added resistor is a non-negligible added load on a 600 Ohm driver.

This trick works much better with cascaded (typically Darlington) final stage with much higher current gain. With another stage the 600 output would drive 8 Ohm load, and ~~1K more is negligible. But this Q&D driver is not worth re-designing.
 
PRR said:
> split R93 into two halves

Yes, though the ~~1K added resistor is a non-negligible added load on a 600 Ohm driver.

This trick works much better with cascaded (typically Darlington) final stage with much higher current gain. With another stage the 600 output would drive 8 Ohm load, and ~~1K more is negligible. But this Q&D driver is not worth re-designing.

Which leads you to ask why the quiescent current in Q16 is so high? Possibly low beta in the output pair but there are very many 600 ohm driver stages built this way which makes it hard to understand the design choice of bootstrapping this way and compromising on a gapped output transformer. A bit of a curiosity but as you say not worth redesigning.

Cheers

Ian
 
NOON said:
Hi everyone. At what kind of current levels does a gapped output transformer become necessary?
It is not only a matter of current. It depends on the number of turns and the size of the core. I guess they may have used a slightly oversized xfmr and got away with it.
 
DC will shift the flux  generated by the AC signal above the horizontal axis of the BH curve,

DC might  bias the AC flux swing into a non linear part of the BH curve if the core can not handle it,

DC in a wire wrapped around a steel core will generate a force equal to F= .4Pi * current * turns

most 600 ohm transformers have about 600 turns, you have 5 ma of DC current,

F=1.2566 * ,005 * 600 = 3.77 Gilberts?
we can distribute that magnetic force along the closed loop  path of a a core, how big is that loop?

a typical 600:600 uses a core along the lines of 375 EI (3/8" tongue)

but for DC flux calculations we want the magnetic path length, not the cross section,

the MPL for 375 EI is 7.3 cm.

so or H field in Oersteds is 3.77 Gilberts/7.3 cm = .516

now what?

well, we have a formula that relates core permeability to flux density (B) and H.

it goes like this: B=uH, where u is relative permeability, which is just the perm of the steel compared to the perm of air,

so B=u * .516

80 Ni (supermalloy)  takes 5000 Gauss and has a perm of 100,000 in clear weather.

so if we have a 80 Ni core in this Bogen, then B(dc)= .516 * 100,000= 51,600 Gauss which is big trouble.

if we have 50 Ni, then max flux = 12,000 and perm is about 20,000, so

B (dc) = .516 * 20,000 = 10,320 Gauss,

we are under the 12 KG limit, but not by much,

what about 4% Si?  takes 18 KG and has a  perm of 10,000, so B=.516 * 10,000 = 5.16 KG

conclusion?

80 Ni is out of the question, 50 Ni will work if you put a small gap in there or use F lams which has a natural gap, Silicon will work with  no gap, but the core will have to be big to get minimum inductance.

here is a graph showing the minor loop due to incremental perm being shifted by DC,
the formula also shows that the perm can be altered with a gap to keep DC flux down.

cores have a natural gap, yours would need to be Bdc= F/Gap,  B=3.77 (from above)/Gap, Gap= 3.77/12000 (50 Ni) = .000314" just to get you below saturation and leaving no room for AC flux (signal)
 

Attachments

  • dc flux.JPG
    dc flux.JPG
    207.7 KB · Views: 22
I've taken R93 to ground with no apparent ill effects on the operation. I'll stick with the simple solution, not worth redesigning the circuit, as various people mentioned. It is what it is, for better or worse, which is the way I want it for this situation.
  When I get a chance I'll sit down with CJ's post, a pot of strong coffee, some textbooks on the physics of metallurgy and magnetism and some hallucinogenics and see if I can get my head around it.  :)
 
NOON said:
  When I get a chance I'll sit down with CJ's post, a pot of strong coffee, some textbooks on the physics of metallurgy and magnetism and some hallucinogenics and see if I can get my head around it.  :)

When you get the answer let us know. I have tried for decades and it stills seems like magic to me.

Cheers

Ian
 
you need math if you are the engineer responsible for ordering lams and wire for a Hoover Dam transformer, but for audio, it is faster and quicker to go into the lab and start spinning wire, that is where you find the slipped decimal point,

forgot to mention that if you need a gapped transformer, use silicon steel,

gapping a nickel core makes no sense as you end up with the same perm of steel and ten times the price,

a Neve output would work well in that Bogen,
 
That "post-cap feedback resistor" at the output is similar to a couple of other circuits I can think of.

The first being the 1000Ω resistor next to Q5 in the Lang PEQ-2A (different values but similar setup in the PEQ-2)....
Lang seems to have done nothing to mitigate DC at the primary, Do we know if that output transformer was gapped?
y3mNqgAAAeMLCdbwVIGi5dHiH1QVBPt7whL6StBtCNL1VeaZMl9uYyJqladxU3oO5KaMQjddC__8QjDngop0x-qKXIUS3Zbu7l2ermXXiTt0XM3Q8MMDsUXsh2MzxiPCXvvF_k0W1onpBRN28iwKeRm6XegC-JHemMUsuUDNsTQ-G8


The other culprit is R16 (1.2kΩ) in the LA-3A. That circuit tackles the DC in an interesting way...
PRR sheds some light on it in this thread
y3mhXZSuLfZPiTEIn5Jtpo4rs8PiYYRYrhcPvK_S7IKS61PubpvkEkT9PUCbYezoCGcju9rjdZTbxOS62gdRiy-amkGXH_Dizhww6_LJUiOBCjp41HD18Pfgsn0l9OTHUlOOU4Hdoy5ReThwop6IXrHCg5-GZLqtn2H9F_vB45C6Yg

PRR said:
The LA3's output transformer T2 is wired wacky. The yel-org winding gets fed only DC! Why? To negate the DC flowing out of R16 driver stage. And why is that flowing through the output iron? To save another hundred-uFd cap. When was this drawn.... ah, 1970. We did chit like that then. It was pretty cheezy.

What about connecting an extra cap to the positive side of C41 and feeding R93 from the new cap?
Then your feedback resistor (R93) is still AC-coupled to the output transistors, But the cap prevents DC flowing onto the transformer primary.

I've seen it done like that in a vaguely similar output stage from an audio developments mixer from the 70's, I don't know enough to say if it would work in your circuit.
 
Lee_M said:
That "post-cap feedback resistor" at the output is similar to a couple of other circuits I can think of.

The first being the 1000Ω resistor next to Q5 in the Lang PEQ-2A (different values but similar setup in the PEQ-2)....
Different issue there. this resistor does not carry significant current, since its main purpose is variable NFB gain adjustment. The voltage from the emitter of the 1st transistor is about 1v so the current is less than 1 mA ( in fact typically 0.2mA).
Lang seems to have done nothing to mitigate DC at the primary, Do we know if that output transformer was gapped?
I don't know, but can make an educated guess based on the fact that all designers of the era knew about the problems related to DC in iron, so my money is on yes.
The other culprit is R16 (1.2kΩ) in the LA-3A. 
Here the current is about 10 mA, which is quite significant compared to the p-to-p audio current; there's no way the designer could have let it pass.
That circuit tackles the DC in an interesting way...
There are so many ways to skin a cat...what about a permanent magnet?  ::)
What about connecting an extra cap to the positive side of C41 and feeding R93 from the new cap?
Then your feedback resistor (R93) is still AC-coupled to the output transistors, But the cap prevents DC flowing onto the transformer primary.
That's how it was often done in transistor radios, even if there was no output xfmr, for preventing DC in the voice-coil. Maybe the designer had bad feelings with electrolytics, who knows...?
 
abbey road d enfer said:
Here the current is about 10 mA, which is quite significant compared to the p-to-p audio current; there's no way the designer could have let it pass.
So I guess for NOON's Bogen mixer something like the EA-11148 could work, With a 4k8(?) resistor from the +24v to the - side of the second primary winding?
That is, if he hasn't already found a solution...

Hmm, Second primary sounds like a misnomer ???

abbey road d enfer said:
There are so many ways to skin a cat...what about a permanent magnet?  ::) 
Google wasn't much help when I tried looking this up.
It sounds interesting, Can you share a little more info?
 
Back
Top