bernbrue said:
As far as I remember there was a quite long discussion before the pcbs were released. Analag had a prototype.
I'm well aware of this. It's the usual thread with people salivating over an imminent PCB release. A little bit light on design data! Besides a trivial PSU transformer specification, here are the only design related comments, which are actually rather important, considering this new M670 rework.
In chronological order:
analag said:
I'm sure something other than XSM can be used for input, I chose XSM for the output because of a number of reasons. DCR which is lower because of bigger wire, which translates to lower voltage drop and higher current carrying capacity and to a lesser degree, less effect from DCR imbalance, core size which is always a plus when DC flows through a transformer even though the pushpull action nullify the effect, higher inductance and it costs only $2.00 extra.
The unbalance in P-CT-P across the primary, is not a problem. What we need is inductance balance from P-CT-P which we have.
I'm curious to see how all these measurements compare to my own.
analag
Here's first hint that the B+ center tap at primary was a design choice that once worked. Perhaps in some other design. It was a well meaning assumption for the to-be "slimmed down, poorman version". At this point untested.
analag said:
Unlike the Altec 4xxx type mu compressor the Fairchild topology is much faster, so in shortest attack/release you will hear it at the onset of compression. This can be dialed out by simply giving it a slower attack. I could have designed it out but I decided to give the user the option of the fastest attack possible.
Also notice no thumping, at all. Even with unmatched tubes.
analag
That negative cathode bias moves grid-voltage/plate-current curve to a more linear section of the curve. The single juiciest bit of the design. No major tube mismatch problems in the thump area indeed. lolo-m I'm surprised you never noticed this. Cross-over distortion is not the same as thump!
But now the PCB was finally out:
analag said:
Since everybody is making a big deal about " the distortion on the left channel". In design and troubleshooting...if the distortion was on both channels, then I would look for a flaw in the design...but if one channel was "OK" and the other was distorting...I would look for a flaw in that (distorting) channel.
Remember it is two identical channels, being driven at the same levels. I specify rotory switches with matched 1% metal film resistors for maximum symmetry between both halves of the differential pair. This is even more important than DCR balance in the output transformers where some people might think the focus should be.
analag
analag was well aware of the possibility of cross-over distortion, but I suppose didn't cater for it because of the "poorman, cheap" design-mentality. I personally think any design whether cheap or quick should cater for error scenarios and should give ample room for parts selection and tolerance.
Now tube matching becomes essential and somehow nobody noticed, not even analag. This is the cross-over distortion generator bit. At this point the PCB goes on market and is sold for years to come. Whooops!
analag said:
I guess you ain't read the first post I made when I started this thread. This mu compressor is not sensitive to tube mis-match. I did my homework in the cathode circuit to compensate for that.
analag
Again, thump is gone indeed, compression performance will even out with mismatched tubes. Good one. But cross-over distortion stays due to the very sensitive center tapped B+ configuration. Not even two triode-halves can compensate for that. Four halves would have a better chance (statistically) - which is a common choice out there - but that's not going to help here.
There's probably like three of you out there left on this forum who might have a clue of what I'm talking about. The above bit of paraphrased archeological digging should be rather enlightening. I suppose everyone had their best intentions (ha!), but then a half-arsed PCB was released to the market and design kinks were never ironed out. Even when they were already known. The designer disappeared with no further comments. At this point it's easier to point fingers. And perhaps it was a good lesson to some.
Still, there is certain simplicity and elegance in the design. If only it worked! And this is where I enter.
This thread, it should be a design discussion, and what I get instead is a bunch of guys in disbelief and whining how their beloved compressor turned out to be a difficult stomp box. For example Gus asked a very relevant question (which I didn't see initially, sorry). I might be confrontational, but that's exactly the kind of thing I appreciate.