Poor Man's Tube Gain Make Up Stage

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Ptownkid said:
I'm reasonably interested as well...to ask a dumb question though...does this thing remain "poor man's" when all these building blocks that are coming together come together?

I suppose it will come down to the iron in the end. I think the rest of the components are pretty straight forward. Does anyone know of a good source for the 6CG7?

Also, what mains tx would we require Ian? I suppose 2 tx's back to back like in the G9 would be ok?
cheers
Chris
 
ruffrecords said:
tmuikku said:
Do a vertical PCB so one can use regular pcb mount tube sockets and then L-bracket to attach the PCB into case bottom ;) This could be then used as a gain stage in  other projects too ( for example console channels trip, no?). Put 8 EQs side by side in one 4u case etc. Separate psu pcb.

Ok, so that would mean this PCB could be no wider than 4U less a bit and no higher than 1U less a bit right? Say 6.5 inches by 1.5 inches?

Edit: So transformers would definitely have to be off board.

Cheers



Ian

Yep, narrow and long board that can be vertically in 1U and horizontally in higher cases. By 4U I ment that one could then mount several gains stages horizontally on bottom of the case and have (poor man eqp1) controls in the front panel as you would have in a console (side by side, like channelstripts). There seems to be very few parts so maybe no pcb at all. I thought vertical PCB could be good since one could use standard tube sockets in 1u chassis. L-bracket is needed anyway for horizontal tube.

I'm not sure if it is possible to do good layout for both situations "two channels per case, vertical mounting" and "8 channels per case, horizontal mounting" in terms of grounding and power distribution though. Just a quick though while zipping coffee :)
 
0dbfs said:
How about mounting the tube in a standard socket/L-bracket combo (or chassis) off of the PCB and wiring it into the PCB as required?

That would be possible the only question in my mind is standardising on some sort of L bracket.


Ian, I was also wondering what you think of using this circuit to drive a 600 ohm load.

The one real compromise the poor man's tube gain make up stage makes is that it will not drive a 600 ohm load. It will drive a 10K bridging load to +28dBu which should be fine for most people.

Cheers

Ian
 
Ptownkid said:
I'm reasonably interested as well...to ask a dumb question though...does this thing remain "poor man's" when all these building blocks that are coming together come together?

Good question. A lot depends on what a poor man is prepared to compromise in order to save money. So far, the poor man's EQP1A has sacrificed the Hi frequency sharp bell response of the original Pultec EQP1A to save an expensive inductor and also saved money by using very low cost switches with a restricted set of frequencies. We are also using low cost 10% capacitors but of course if you want to use 5% or 2.5% types you can (not much point when most pots are 10% tolerance at best).

You could simply add the rest of the Pultec circuit as is, including the interstage transformer, two tubes and output transformer, and still have saved some money. Using the poor man's tube gain make up stage you save an interstage transformer and a tube, you have a very simple power supply but you still get plenty of tube and iron sound but sacrifice the ability to drive 600 ohm loads.. If that is still too expensive for you then you could simply use the poor man's tube gain make up without an output transformer and lose a bit of iron sound. At a push you could drive the EQ input  direct as an unbalanced input and sve the cost of the input transformer.

In the limit I guess you could use one half of a 5532 to provide a balanced input drive to the EQ and use the other half as a gain make up stage and unbalanced output with a very simple power supply all in a small die cast box (or half a 1U box) - probably 100 bucks all  up?

Cheers

Ian
 
chrispbass said:
Ptownkid said:
I'm reasonably interested as well...to ask a dumb question though...does this thing remain "poor man's" when all these building blocks that are coming together come together?

I suppose it will come down to the iron in the end. I think the rest of the components are pretty straight forward. Does anyone know of a good source for the 6CG7?

In the UK I get mine from http://www.hotroxuk.com/. Fast service and keen prices.

Also, what mains tx would we require Ian? I suppose 2 tx's back to back like in the G9 would be ok?
cheers
Chris

That would probably do. The 6CG7 requires 0.6amp at 6.3V and you can run the heaters of a pair in series without problems. For HT you only need 240V ac at 15 to 20mA and the mu follower stage is very tolerant of actual HT voltage so something like the G9 back to backs should work.

Cheers

Ian
 
Elevating the heater supply also helps reduce hum.  In my slip-shod experience, more so than DC heaters.  At any rate, I'll elevate the heaters before I resort to DC; and elevation is where I usually stop.
From what I understand, as the voltage between the heater and the cathode increases, the leakage current is reduced.  Ten volts plus works for most tubes.

This Wizard has more information, and lists a reference I can't find, but someone might have a scan of.
 
Hi Ian,



  in the spirit of it being Poorman . . . . do we have to use an output transformer at all. It doesnt need to be balanced for me.


    Kindest regards,



    ANdyP
 
Of course not. It will happily run unbalanced. If you manage to keep noise out of the system with well considered grounds it can be even thought of as the clean option. No transformer in the signal path mangling and otherwise ringing your square waves edges.
 
ruffrecords said:
chrispbass said:
Ptownkid said:
I'm reasonably interested as well...to ask a dumb question though...does this thing remain "poor man's" when all these building blocks that are coming together come together?

I suppose it will come down to the iron in the end. I think the rest of the components are pretty straight forward. Does anyone know of a good source for the 6CG7?

In the UK I get mine from http://www.hotroxuk.com/. Fast service and keen prices.

Also, what mains tx would we require Ian? I suppose 2 tx's back to back like in the G9 would be ok?
cheers
Chris

That would probably do. The 6CG7 requires 0.6amp at 6.3V and you can run the heaters of a pair in series without problems. For HT you only need 240V ac at 15 to 20mA and the mu follower stage is very tolerant of actual HT voltage so something like the G9 back to backs should work.

Cheers

Ian

Thanks for the reply Ian
cheers
Chris
 
Just a note on my choice of the 6CG7. I have spent a lot of time testing tubes of different sorts, looking for one with inherently low distortion characteristics and which is still in production. As I am sure many of you know, the good old 6SN7 has a reputation for a 'good' sound and this is borne out by the tests of others that confirm it is an inherently low distortion tube. It turns out that the 6CG7 is no more that a 6SN7 in a more convenient all glass B9A bottle and I have tested lot s of new and NOS types to confirm to my own satisfaction that this is so.

I also spent a lot of time looking at tube pre-amp topologies searching for one that had reasonable gain, low distortion and good drive capabilities without the need for huge amounts of negative feedback. The mu follower using a 6CG7 meets all these requirements.

Cheers

Ian
 
Ian, I found your test paper on the 6sn7 mu follower. Good stuff! I plan on using a 6sn7 myself, mostly because it's what I have on hand. Curious though, what is it that's stopping the circuit from driving a 600 ohm load? The output impedance should be really low. Is it the circuit or the tube? I also have some 6bl7 sitting around. I've heard of people subbing those in 6sn7 circuits with some success.
 
gemini86 said:
Ian, I found your test paper on the 6sn7 mu follower. Good stuff! I plan on using a 6sn7 myself, mostly because it's what I have on hand. Curious though, what is it that's stopping the circuit from driving a 600 ohm load? The output impedance should be really low. Is it the circuit or the tube? I also have some 6bl7 sitting around. I've heard of people subbing those in 6sn7 circuits with some success.

The reason is standing current and ultimately plate dissipation. My circuit runs the 6CG7 at close to 5mA standing current. If we assume the mu follower is a perfect push pull circuit the most peak current it could pump into a load is 10mA or 7mA rms which across 600 ohms is:

V = IR = 7mA * 0.6K = 4.24V rms = +15dBu which means we have very little headroom if our normal operating level is +4dBu

In practice, due to other factors, it is less than this and distortion is also a lot higher.

Into 10K however it can in theory do 7mA * 10K = 70V rms = +39dBu.

In practice it can do about +34dBu into 10K.

So the obvious answer is to increase the current. There are two problems with this. The voltage drop across the 10K resistor between the tubes increases which reduces the voltage across each tube and thus the maximum output voltage. We could reduce the value of resistor but then distortion goes up and the gain goes down (and if you reduce it to zero you effectively end up with an SSRP). The only real solution is to raise the HT and it is already at 300V. Raising it to 400V would probably allow is to run the idle at 10mA but even this would only give us a 6dB improvement in maximum output level.

An alternative is to use a 10K:600 transformer with the existing circuit. The output  level (and overall gain) would then drop by 12dB but we could then achieve +22dBu into 600 ohms (34 - 12), except the tube is running at a level 12dB higher than the output which means the distortion is 12dB higher than it would otherwise be and we still need to find 12dB of gain from somewhere.

The bottom line is the mu follower is not really suitable for driving power into a 600 ohm load. Remember that +26dBu into 600 ohms is nearly half a watt of power. To do that you might think along the lines of using an SRPP and a tube able to handle higher currents. An ECC99 could be a good choice which,running at 20mA in an SRPP, should be able to put 40mA peak or 28mA rms into 600 ohms which is:

V = IR = 28 * 0.6K = 16.8V rms = +26dBu.

Not surprisingly, the ECC99 in an SRPP topology has been used for headphone amplifiers.

A mu follower gives us a gain close to mu which in the case of the 6CG7 is 20 or 26dB which is just enough with a little margin for the gain make up we need for our EQ.  However, an SRPP has a gain close to half mu, which in the case of the ECC99 would be 22/2 = 11 = 21dB.  This is barely enough to make up the losses in the EQ circuit. It also produces a lot more distortion at a given output level than a mu follower. So, on balance, the mu follower provides us with everything we want - high headroom, low distortion, good gain - but we have to compromise on a 10K load capability.

Of course, you are free to try and ECC99 SRPP if you wish, but you will need four times the HT current and twice the heater current which may make it a little more expensive.

Cheers

Ian
 
gemini86 said:
I also have some 6bl7 sitting around. I've heard of people subbing those in 6sn7 circuits with some success.

I just checked the 6BL7 data sheet. If I read it right it has a whacking 1.5A heater current - might put a bit of a strain on the mains tranny if you substitute them for a couple of 6SN7s!!

Cheers

Ian
 
Here's is a first draft PCB layout which is 6 inches by 1.5 inches and houses two independent gain make up stages so it is suitable for a stereo application. The HT and heaters simply come out to Vero pins at the board edge so ALL power supply parts are assumed to be external. I have for the moment put in six 4mm holes to allow it to be mounted using 3 'L' brackets.

Cheers

Ian

 

Attachments

  • tubegain.png
    tubegain.png
    49.2 KB · Views: 214
Back
Top