Another day, another calibration run .... moved to an attenuator setting of -28.3dB (loopback measurements).
With plate signals of 10 .. 100Vac my attenuator box 'factor' of -28.3dB is a bit more accurate in REW ... with respect to the 'signal margin over hum' or loosely speaking 'signal noise ratio'.
At that attenuation, my 'signal-under-test' noise floor is above the 'noise-floor of the measurement channel', so I'm not 'over-attenuating' and thereby worsening my 'signal under test' dynamic range.
I may need to 'rejig' my atten box to really hone in some more .... my old -37dB is too much and -28dB is not quite enough :
I suppose 33 is the magic number ... I may try a 100K-50ohm traffo too .. it's 33 for sure.
....
I reset my RTA display limits to best show this 'tightened up' view .... I can't quite get the display as I want ... I like to have the 'freq-response-sweep' trace fully visible across the top and not obscured by the 'thd display window'. So in order to 'clear' the THD window, I need to 'scrunch up' the RTA amplitude limits a bit.
I would like to see the 'THD window' become 'long' sideways and 'short' downways. It's a question of 'visual to noise ratio'
No bout adout it.
* Never happy are we
*
Also, not at all sure what the 'DR' is telling me .. in the 'peak present' displays. In the 'silence' I get 'it' more, and in the 'sweep' too - but the 'plain old RTA mode' THD display window DR field, I don't know what is.
...
I think I get about 2dB more 'accuity' from this ( -28.3dB atten) match of the 'measurement channel' to the 'signal under test'.
ie. signal margin over hum is improved around 2dB
It's a bit like when the optometrist switches the lenses until he finds the best for your poor eyesight
....
The other thing I have to consider is the reduction in THD one gets in a simple test like this ... when one sets the gca bias colder ... wrt to the chosen test input signal amplitude.
ie. 2Vpp sine at the grid .... bias at +3.2V improves the reported THD than bias at +2.8V.
- gain changes a little when I vary the bias (all other things being equal) ... when bias 'colder' -> less gain, THD is also reduced
My thing is to bias as I would in the 'real world' for the expected role ... and go from there.
ie. 0 .. 1Vpp range input or 1 .. 2Vpp, 2 .. 3Vpp, 3V .. 5Vpp, 5 .. 10Vpp and so on
.....
With this in mind, I get a baseline thd of 1.0% from the 6922 gca+cf at B+ 245V with +3.2V bias with bypass cap .. 2Vpp input and 47Vpp output ... [driving my '1M' atten box as load]
I could chase that back down to 0.61% by biasing for less gain ... but it's kind of silly .. one is generally striving for all the *basic* available gain.
It's a bit 'artificial' or 'tailored for test' to get too 'finely biased' ... not to mention easier to go into overloaded grid condition when something apart from the test signal is encountered .... ie *music*
....
So now my two tubes types are converging in terms of thd .... but the very big gulf on the B+ remains.
The 6922 is designed for a lower B+ and in THD, shows 'no penalty for it'
whereas E83F-triode-mode needs a proper >300V B+ to get similar THD, but with higher signal-hum margin 'for the trouble'
I confess, I am a 'signal to hum' guy ... I like to blow any 'hum-gains' made, on
'tube limiting' repeatedly and wherever possible.
As long as it's <1% that is.
This is what it takes to get there!
....
So it was worthwhile to spend an hour or so rechecking my 'atten factor' to suit the testing I'm doing and to make sure everything 'lines up' properly. It's the kind of thing one does at each test session
to 'keep it real'.
Generally speaking, I get a maximum of approx 0.3dB uncertainty in the measured amplitudes of I/O with the M-Audio-REW combo 'round trip'.
That's 0.1dB on the Send, 0.1dB on the Return and a further 0.1dB 'for good measure'
Other items to account for are ....
[apart from 'circuit gain' and 'hv probe box atten+bal factor']
(in order of impact)
- input debalancing transformer level shifting
- insertion loss in the input transformer
- uncertainty in CRO measurements
- loading effects at the audio interface send and return
With that lot in mind, you can really closely measure and compare-to-expectation the gain structure all the way thru - very important.
....
And finally ... the 'takeaway'
one can get a good match between the 'display', the 'gain of circuit under test' and the 'attenuation factor' such that they mostly cancel each other out, giving you a 'measurement channel' which is nicely 'normalized' to the 'device under test' and with a 'traceable' degree of confidence.
....
Probably could do with a really great 'attenuator' overhaul ... not just the pitiful little lorlin with 4 positions in a 'stomp box' that I currently have ;D
Might be a good time to buy a proper large multideck switch and do the thing properly.
All good!
.....
Here's a pic of a suitable eb y rotary switch for use as an attenuator ... 12usd ... 11pos, 4 deck .. large open frame
Tomorrow I'll really start to grind and snap 8) but the 'attenuator box' upgrade will have to wait ... maybe next winter