Sound Practices Mailing List Files - Volume 1
=========================================================================
From: Michael Greene <mgreene@bnl.gov>
Subject: 211 Brand Comparison
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:01:27 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n362
- --------------9683C9B9D85DEA78F5F58BC9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello Joe's,
Has any one found any remarkable difference between the Golden Dragon
211's and the regular production Chinese 211?
Thanks
Mike
- --------------9683C9B9D85DEA78F5F58BC9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<B>Hello Joe's,</B><B></B>
<P>Has any one found any remarkable difference between the Golden Dragon
211's and the regular production Chinese 211?
<P>Thanks
<P>Mike</HTML>
- --------------9683C9B9D85DEA78F5F58BC9--
=========================================================================
From: merrec@mail1.jpl.nasa.gov (Christopher Merren)
Subject: Re: 211 Brand Comparison
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:50:27 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n362
- --------------EFC35ABD9C7F1ADC31714AE2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Michael Greene wrote:
> Hello Joe's,
>
> Has any one found any remarkable difference between the Golden Dragon
> 211's and the regular production Chinese 211?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
I have bought Chinese 211 valves wholesale by the case for $10 a
tube.....
Then I checked out Gold Dragon tubes...
I did full measurements such as capacitance, grid current,dynamic
transconductance,mu, ect....
al these test were done at 1250 plate volts.......
I also broke the glass and stripped the valves apart to examine
construction........
Guess What???????????
There was no F#%$-ING difference !!!!!!!!!!
In fact the matched pairs from Gold Dragon were not only poorly matched
but the specs such as transconductance were much lower than
spec...meaning that they were like equivalent to using a old worn
valve........ which also makes the plate resistance go up..
I was pissed considering the money they wanted.....what a mark-up !!!!!!
BTW: Tubes by design has a parent company in U.K...that will not sell to
USA.... They sell the same Gold Dragons valves for much less the
money....In fact I was able to have a friend in UK get these Gold
Dragons by mail then turn them around and re-mail them to me in the
states for still much cheaper than buying them here........... How does
this make sense???????
As far as I am concerned it is MUCH cheaper to buy a case of 211 valves
wholesale then just pick the best of the liter........
CHEERS
CM
- --------------EFC35ABD9C7F1ADC31714AE2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<P>Michael Greene wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <B>Hello Joe's,</B>
<P>Has any one found any remarkable difference between the Golden Dragon
211's and the regular production Chinese 211?
<P>Thanks
<P>Mike</BLOCKQUOTE>
I have bought Chinese 211 valves wholesale by the case for
$10 a tube.....
<BR>Then I checked out Gold Dragon tubes...
<BR>I did full measurements such as capacitance, grid current,dynamic transconductance,mu,
ect....
<BR>al these test were done at 1250 plate volts.......
<BR>I also broke the glass and stripped the valves apart to examine construction........
<BR>Guess What???????????
<BR>There was no F#%$-ING difference !!!!!!!!!!
<BR>In fact the matched pairs from Gold Dragon were not only poorly matched
but the specs such as transconductance were much lower than spec...meaning
that they were like equivalent to using a old worn valve........ which
also makes the plate resistance go up..
<BR>I was pissed considering the money they wanted.....what a mark-up !!!!!!
<BR>BTW: Tubes by design has a parent company in U.K...that will not sell
to USA.... They sell the same Gold Dragons valves for
much less the money....In fact I was able to have a friend in UK get these
Gold Dragons by mail then turn them around and re-mail them to me in the
states for still much cheaper than buying them here........... How does
this make sense???????
<BR>As far as I am concerned it is MUCH cheaper to buy a case of 211 valves
wholesale then just pick the best of the liter........
<BR>CHEERS
<BR>CM
<BR> </HTML>
- --------------EFC35ABD9C7F1ADC31714AE2--
=========================================================================
From: spence barton <ence-ack@rio.com>
Subject: 211 hum
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 14:57:00 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n457
Grego Sanguinetti wrote:
> tipped 211's are very cool, but buyer beware...
> I have had three pairs of these and they were all VERY noisy. I
powered
> up two of them at the first VSAC tube tasting and we couldn't listen
> to them because of the hum, no matter what we did.
> They sure look cool though. If you found a pair that weren't noisy
> they would be great.
I have found this to be true of GE VT-4C/211's. I have about 30 of them
and
only a very few could be used with AC on the filaments. DC, of course,
solves
the whole thing but... at a price.
spence
=========================================================================
From: Robert Root <rrjlife@earthlink.net>
Subject: 211 Kit and VSAC:
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 18:54:04 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n354
I plan to bring our 211-Tango IT Coupled Kit to the show in
August. It all hinges on my Mother's health at the time, but it looks
promising right know. This Amp is a joint venture between Sandy Ong
and myself. Mark Katz and friend Barbara have been most helpful with
unbiased comments that have added to the final circuit.
As you know I have one A5 up in mono with this amp. I am more than
impressed and really could live with a mono setup. Mr. Ong and I have
the same system down to the last Cap. and are believers in the
Hiraga EQ setup. Its much better the the tweeked Tad 2001 Edgar
system. More open, bigger soundstage, more natural. The Tad presents
a thin, sterile presentation. The 805B horn has wide dispersion which
a couple of my non-audiofile friends expressed last night. Not into
my music they sat down to Joe Henderson and some vocals for the
longest time and became believers.
rr---
=========================================================================
From: Darrell Whitfield <dwhitfield@primary.net>
Subject: 211 operating point
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:06:20 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n033
I'm thinking about building a 211SE amp,can someone from experience give
me a good operating point for this tube . (your favorite o.p.)
all suggetions welcomed!
Thanks!
Darrell
=========================================================================
From: BART <bartonw@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: RE: 211 operating point
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:58:30 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n034
Hi Darrell,
I have used 1,000volts, which is common and loads from 9K to 18K and
current from 30ma to 80ma for tests.
To my mind this tube is very accommodating and sounds good regardless if
everything else in your amp sounds good. 18K gives vanishingly low measured
distortion at some little loss of power. 9K still sounds excellent. My
guess is around 11 -12K would be very good.
About 45 - 55ma is excellent at this voltage (about -55v from memory). No
point in higher current and tube life at this level will be many years.
Others have tried 1200v and even 1500v and like it. I haven't tried this
but don't doubt it sounds excellent. I wouldn't go below about 950v but who
knows??
So really you cant go wrong!
I have never had a thin sterile sound out of this tube and suggest those
that get this sound have problems somewhere else.
If you want something really simple that gives superb sound and you dont
need to push for the last ounce of power, try a simple direct coupled 6SN7
driver cap coupled (very best film cap essential) to a self biased 211. I
use the much maligned cathode follower and fixed bias (as does Ongaku) and
this works well and probably gives a bit of extra power.
If you get good iron and caps you can start with SS rectification also and
then build up to the more exotic (and complex and expensive) variations.
As we all know, with SET, the trannies are everything.
I have tried GE, Westinghouse and cheap Chinese tubes and the Chinese are
great. I have no idea why people spend a fortune on exotic O/P tubes for
SET when these cheap 211's sound so good.
My .02 from my (limited) experiences.
One last word. Be bloody careful - 1000v is lethal. Make sure you stay
terrified of it! One hand in pocket etc.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart Shepherd
2 Rosemount Ave., Summer Hill, N.S.W 2130, Australia
612 98081475 bartonw@ozemail.com.au
- ----------
From: Darrell Whitfield[SMTP:dwhitfield@primary.net]
Sent: Monday, 22 September 1997 0:06
To: sound@deliverator.io.com
Subject: 211 operating point
I'm thinking about building a 211SE amp,can someone from experience give
me a good operating point for this tube . (your favorite o.p.)
all suggetions welcomed!
Thanks!
Darrell
=========================================================================
From: Darrell Whitfield <dwhitfield@primary.net>
Subject: Re: 211 operating point
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 20:18:23 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n045
Thanks for your very informative response!!!!!!
BART wrote:
>
> Hi Darrell,
>
> I have used 1,000volts, which is common and loads from 9K to 18K and
> current from 30ma to 80ma for tests.
>
> To my mind this tube is very accommodating and sounds good regardless if
> everything else in your amp sounds good. 18K gives vanishingly low measured
> distortion at some little loss of power. 9K still sounds excellent. My
> guess is around 11 -12K would be very good.
>
> About 45 - 55ma is excellent at this voltage (about -55v from memory). No
> point in higher current and tube life at this level will be many years.
So your saying 1,000volts/55ma/-v55/12k OPT correct?
I have been thinking of a 12sn7/6sn7 voltage amp and a 5687/7119 as a
driver like the AudioNote Kit 1 what do you think? what do you use?
I guess that is about 9/10 watts.
I found three OPT AutoNote 10k/150ma/50WATT ,Sowter
SE11A/10K/70ma/25watt
SJS eletroacoustics SE109/15K/75ma/40watts I HAVE NOT FOUND ANY 12K
OPT'S
any thoughts on the three listed?
> Others have tried 1200v and even 1500v and like it. I haven't tried this
> but don't doubt it sounds excellent. I wouldn't go below about 950v but who
> knows??
Isn't the Ongaku O.P. 1200v or so? Do you know the opearting point of
the Ongaku?
or the other valves it uses and the circuit topology? I ordered the
schematic or the Ongaku and will build a copper one if is not overly
complicated.
> So really you cant go wrong!
>
> I have never had a thin sterile sound out of this tube and suggest those
> that get this sound have problems somewhere else.
>
> If you want something really simple that gives superb sound and you dont
> need to push for the last ounce of power, try a simple direct coupled 6SN7
> driver cap coupled (very best film cap essential) to a self biased 211. I
> use the much maligned cathode follower and fixed bias (as does Ongaku) and
> this works well and probably gives a bit of extra power.
>
> If you get good iron and caps you can start with SS rectification also and
> then build up to the more exotic (and complex and expensive) variations.
I was thinking of using a 500-0-500 trannie with two 5A4GY recitifers in
voltage
doubler,to get 1.000 to 1200 volts,can you recommend some wire to carry
this high
voltage?
>
> As we all know, with SET, the trannies are everything.
>
> I have tried GE, Westinghouse and cheap Chinese tubes and the Chinese are
> great. I have no idea why people spend a fortune on exotic O/P tubes for
> SET when these cheap 211's sound so good.
Good DEAL!!!
>
> My .02 from my (limited) experiences.
>
> One last word. Be bloody careful - 1000v is lethal. Make sure you stay
> terrified of it! One hand in pocket etc.
Yes I will stay terrified of it with one hand in my pocket!!!
Thank so much for your help!!!!!!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bart
>
> Bart Shepherd
> 2 Rosemount Ave., Summer Hill, N.S.W 2130, Australia
> 612 98081475 bartonw@ozemail.com.au
>
> ----------
> From: Darrell Whitfield[SMTP:dwhitfield@primary.net]
> Sent: Monday, 22 September 1997 0:06
> To: sound@deliverator.io.com
> Subject: 211 operating point
>
> I'm thinking about building a 211SE amp,can someone from experience give
> me a good operating point for this tube . (your favorite o.p.)
>
> all suggetions welcomed!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Darrell
=========================================================================
From: Darrell Whitfield <dwhitfield@primary.net>
Subject: Re: 211 operating point
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 00:03:07 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n046
Darrell Whitfield wrote:
>
> Thanks for your very informative response!!!!!!
>
> BART wrote:
> >
> > Hi Darrell,
> >
> > I have used 1,000volts, which is common and loads from 9K to 18K and
> > current from 30ma to 80ma for tests.
> >
> > To my mind this tube is very accommodating and sounds good regardless if
> > everything else in your amp sounds good. 18K gives vanishingly low measured
> > distortion at some little loss of power. 9K still sounds excellent. My
> > guess is around 11 -12K would be very good.
> >
> > About 45 - 55ma is excellent at this voltage (about -55v from memory). No
> > point in higher current and tube life at this level will be many years.
>
> So your saying 1,000volts/55ma/-v55/12k OPT correct?
> I have been thinking of a 12sn7/6sn7 voltage amp and a 5687/7119 as a
> driver like the AudioNote Kit 1 what do you think? what do you use?
>
> I guess that is about 9/10 watts.
>
> I found three OPT AutoNote 10k/150ma/50WATT ,Sowter
> SE11A/10K/70ma/25watt
> SJS eletroacoustics SE109/15K/75ma/40watts I HAVE NOT FOUND ANY 12K
> OPT'S
> any thoughts on the three listed?
>
> > Others have tried 1200v and even 1500v and like it. I haven't tried this
> > but don't doubt it sounds excellent. I wouldn't go below about 950v but who
> > knows??
>
> Isn't the Ongaku O.P. 1200v or so? Do you know the opearting point of
> the Ongaku?
> or the other valves it uses and the circuit topology? I ordered the
> schematic or the Ongaku and will build a copper one if is not overly
> complicated.
>
>
> > So really you cant go wrong!
> >
> > I have never had a thin sterile sound out of this tube and suggest those
> > that get this sound have problems somewhere else.
> >
> > If you want something really simple that gives superb sound and you dont
> > need to push for the last ounce of power, try a simple direct coupled 6SN7
> > driver cap coupled (very best film cap essential) to a self biased 211. I
> > use the much maligned cathode follower and fixed bias (as does Ongaku) and
> > this works well and probably gives a bit of extra power.
> >
> > If you get good iron and caps you can start with SS rectification also and
> > then build up to the more exotic (and complex and expensive) variations.
>
> I was thinking of using a 500-0-500 trannie with two 5A4GY recitifers in
> voltage
> doubler,to get 1.000 to 1200 volts,can you recommend some wire to carry
> this high
> voltage?
>
> >
> > As we all know, with SET, the trannies are everything.
> >
> > I have tried GE, Westinghouse and cheap Chinese tubes and the Chinese are
> > great. I have no idea why people spend a fortune on exotic O/P tubes for
> > SET when these cheap 211's sound so good.
>
> Good DEAL!!!
> >
> > My .02 from my (limited) experiences.
> >
> > One last word. Be bloody careful - 1000v is lethal. Make sure you stay
> > terrified of it! One hand in pocket etc.
>
> Yes I will stay terrified of it with one hand in my pocket!!!
>
> Thank so much for your help!!!!!!
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bart
> >
> > Bart Shepherd
> > 2 Rosemount Ave., Summer Hill, N.S.W 2130, Australia
> > 612 98081475 bartonw@ozemail.com.au
> >
> > ----------
> > From: Darrell Whitfield[SMTP:dwhitfield@primary.net]
> > Sent: Monday, 22 September 1997 0:06
> > To: sound@deliverator.io.com
> > Subject: 211 operating point
> >
> > I'm thinking about building a 211SE amp,can someone from experience give
> > me a good operating point for this tube . (your favorite o.p.)
> >
> > all suggetions welcomed!
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Darrell
Sorry that was suppose to be email.
Darrell
=========================================================================
From: BART <bartonw@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: RE: 211 operating point
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 17:25:39 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n046
- ----------
From: Darrell Whitfield
Sent: Saturday, 27 September 1997 10:18
To: BART
Cc: sound@deliverator.io.com
Subject: Re: 211 operating point
Thanks for your very informative response!!!!!!
BART wrote:
>
> Hi Darrell,
>
> I have used 1,000volts, which is common and loads from 9K to 18K and
> current from 30ma to 80ma for tests.
>
> To my mind this tube is very accommodating and sounds good regardless if
> everything else in your amp sounds good. 18K gives vanishingly low
measured
> distortion at some little loss of power. 9K still sounds excellent. My
> guess is around 11 -12K would be very good.
>
> About 45 - 55ma is excellent at this voltage (about -55v from memory). No
> point in higher current and tube life at this level will be many years.
So your saying 1,000volts/55ma/-v55/12k OPT correct?
I have been thinking of a 12sn7/6sn7 voltage amp and a 5687/7119 as a
driver like the AudioNote Kit 1 what do you think? what do you use?
I guess that is about 9/10 watts.
>>
I suggest the N7 in direct coupled cascade and yes i think this would be
very good. I use an N7 paralleled at high disapation as a cathode follower.
The 5687 would be very good, maybe better.
It actually gives about 17 watts or so. Sounds like 60.
>>
I found three OPT AutoNote 10k/150ma/50WATT ,Sowter
SE11A/10K/70ma/25watt
SJS eletroacoustics SE109/15K/75ma/40watts I HAVE NOT FOUND ANY 12K
OPT'S
any thoughts on the three listed?
>>
I would prefer the 15K to 10K. If conservatively spec'd 75ma should be OK.
Check with Simon that it is designed for a 211.
>>
> Others have tried 1200v and even 1500v and like it. I haven't tried this
> but don't doubt it sounds excellent. I wouldn't go below about 950v but
who
> knows??
Isn't the Ongaku O.P. 1200v or so? Do you know the opearting point of
the Ongaku?
or the other valves it uses and the circuit topology? I ordered the
schematic or the Ongaku and will build a copper one if is not overly
complicated.
> So really you cant go wrong!
>
> I have never had a thin sterile sound out of this tube and suggest those
> that get this sound have problems somewhere else.
>
> If you want something really simple that gives superb sound and you dont
> need to push for the last ounce of power, try a simple direct coupled
6SN7
> driver cap coupled (very best film cap essential) to a self biased 211. I
> use the much maligned cathode follower and fixed bias (as does Ongaku)
and
> this works well and probably gives a bit of extra power.
>
> If you get good iron and caps you can start with SS rectification also
and
> then build up to the more exotic (and complex and expensive) variations.
I was thinking of using a 500-0-500 trannie with two 5A4GY recitifers in
voltage
doubler,to get 1.000 to 1200 volts,can you recommend some wire to carry
this high
voltage?
>>
I'm not so keen on voltage doublers. Why not try a bridge of the diodes
Lynn has mentioned? Don't forget you need a voltage convenient for cap
ratings or some mlutiple of this.
I used some silicon covered stuff, very flexible and rated for about 3KV
from memory. The voltage appears to act pretty tamely but I haven't
provoked it!
>>
>
> As we all know, with SET, the trannies are everything.
>
> I have tried GE, Westinghouse and cheap Chinese tubes and the Chinese are
> great. I have no idea why people spend a fortune on exotic O/P tubes for
> SET when these cheap 211's sound so good.
Good DEAL!!!
>
> My .02 from my (limited) experiences.
>
> One last word. Be bloody careful - 1000v is lethal. Make sure you stay
> terrified of it! One hand in pocket etc.
Yes I will stay terrified of it with one hand in my pocket!!!
Thank so much for your help!!!!!!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bart
>
> Bart Shepherd
> 2 Rosemount Ave., Summer Hill, N.S.W 2130, Australia
> 612 98081475 bartonw@ozemail.com.au
>
> ----------
> From: Darrell Whitfield[SMTP:dwhitfield@primary.net]
> Sent: Monday, 22 September 1997 0:06
> To: sound@deliverator.io.com
> Subject: 211 operating point
>
> I'm thinking about building a 211SE amp,can someone from experience give
> me a good operating point for this tube . (your favorite o.p.)
>
> all suggetions welcomed!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Darrell
=========================================================================
From: "Daniel J. Marshall" <danmarshall@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: 211 operating point, or whatever
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:11:25 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n034
I have this acquaintenance who has more tube stuff and electronics gear
than any human being has the right to even dream of. One of his goodies
is a humongous 1200 volt regulated power supply. He was about to
scavenge this thing for the chokes and oil caps, but I think I headed
him off in time. This thing is bruser, the power tranny has a core
about 6" x 8" x about ten inches thick. I don't know the current
rating, but he claims to have the manual for it and I believe I can snag
it for a favorable trade. He said he picked it up for fifteen bucks.
This thing weighs about eighty-five lbs. and generally gets moved about
on a dolly; he is getting on a bit and can't even lift it.
Well, this seems to be an ideal thing to power a whonkin set of
monoblock amps. It must be rated at least a half amp, or so, so could
power some pretty serious amps. Maybe PPs 845 or SV572s, or whatever.
Any suggestions on its proper utilization without getting into serious
bucks?
Dan Marshall
=========================================================================
From: BART <bartonw@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: RE: 211 operating point, or whatever
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 15:29:24 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n034
Hi Dan,
Sounds just the job to drive four parallel 211's grounded grid into a 3k
load using a 300B driver and cathode IT. But then this would only use 400ma
or so - maybe try for 200watts out of eight 211's??
The tubes are cheap and the trannies whilst big are low enough impedance to
be easy to wind. The thick wire might be a tad hard to pull on though.
The sixteen big bottles would look pretty cool - or hot should I say? Put
it up on a high shelf to double as room light and heater.
Bart
- ----------
From: Daniel J. Marshall[SMTP:danmarshall@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Monday, 22 September 1997 12:11
To: BART
Cc: sound@deliverator.io.com; 'dwhitfield@primary.net'
Subject: Re: 211 operating point, or whatever
I have this acquaintenance who has more tube stuff and electronics gear
than any human being has the right to even dream of. One of his goodies
is a humongous 1200 volt regulated power supply. He was about to
scavenge this thing for the chokes and oil caps, but I think I headed
him off in time. This thing is bruser, the power tranny has a core
about 6" x 8" x about ten inches thick. I don't know the current
rating, but he claims to have the manual for it and I believe I can snag
it for a favorable trade. He said he picked it up for fifteen bucks.
This thing weighs about eighty-five lbs. and generally gets moved about
on a dolly; he is getting on a bit and can't even lift it.
Well, this seems to be an ideal thing to power a whonkin set of
monoblock amps. It must be rated at least a half amp, or so, so could
power some pretty serious amps. Maybe PPs 845 or SV572s, or whatever.
Any suggestions on its proper utilization without getting into serious
bucks?
Dan Marshall
=========================================================================
From: "Daniel J. Marshall" <danmarshall@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: 211 operating point, or whatever, mainly whatever
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:54:21 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n035
I seem to be getting more and more redundant posts, four of this one, so
far. I had sent it by tagging onto another post. Upon inspection the
following address was noted in the "Cc:" Field.
BART <bartonw@ozemail.com.au>, "sound@deliverator.io.com"
<sound@deliverator.io.com>, "'dwhitfield@primary.net'"
<dwhitfield@primary.net>
Also, it was addressed to me in the "Mail To:" field.
How do these multiple addresses find their way int to tworkings of this
machine. Perhaps I should be more observant when posting. What is teh
current "correct" address to use? This post is being sent to:
<sound@deliverator.io.com> only. I'll check and see if this does the
trick w/o any duplicates.
Dan Marshall
=========================================================================
From: Robert Root <rrjlife@earthlink.net>
Subject: 211 SE Kit Update:
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:50:18 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n321
After 12 months of intense work on a 211 SE Monoblock Kit I can
now tell you the finished product sounds great. Many hours were spent
swaping and upgrading parts for the best possible sound. All iron
was custom made to our spefications. We found that proper placemant
and orientation of parts and wire loom placement had a great impact
on the sound. Several AC switch vendors were discarded due to high
noise. The Amp is fast,dynamic with killer mids and highs. Inter-
stage coupling adds to clarity and a gain pot alows for CD direct
input. There is no hum when the pot is wide open on my horns!
I plan to be at the show in Aug. and will scan the photos taken
today by a professional. Prints will be sent by request. This Amp
is for the experienced builder only and requires effort on your part
to make it your amp. Any change in layout will affect the sound. I
found out the hard way.
--RootSong Audio--
=========================================================================
From: "Johari Yip" <hfyip@pacific.net.sg>
Subject: Re: 211 SE Kit Update:
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:09:27 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n321
What's the damaged to my bank account on this one?
Johari
- ----------
> From: Robert Root <rrjlife@earthlink.net>
> To: sound@deliverator.io.com
> Subject: 211 SE Kit Update:
> Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 1:50 PM
>
> After 12 months of intense work on a 211 SE Monoblock Kit I can
> now tell you the finished product sounds great. Many hours were spent
> swaping and upgrading parts for the best possible sound. All iron
> was custom made to our spefications. We found that proper placemant
> and orientation of parts and wire loom placement had a great impact
> on the sound. Several AC switch vendors were discarded due to high
> noise. The Amp is fast,dynamic with killer mids and highs. Inter-
> stage coupling adds to clarity and a gain pot alows for CD direct
> input. There is no hum when the pot is wide open on my horns!
>
> I plan to be at the show in Aug. and will scan the photos taken
> today by a professional. Prints will be sent by request. This Amp
> is for the experienced builder only and requires effort on your part
> to make it your amp. Any change in layout will affect the sound. I
> found out the hard way.
>
> --RootSong Audio--
=========================================================================
From: merrec@mail1.jpl.nasa.gov (Christopher Merren)
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 12:04:51 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n353
Hartmut wrote:
> Joe-netters,
>
> when I visited Thomas Mayer, I had the chance to listen
> his Sakuma style 211 power amp and liked it very much,
> resolution, flow of music and so on are extremely good,
> and that best is neutral, too. The only slight flaw I
> could detect was the bass being a bit less solid than I was
> used to.
>
> When I talked to Manfred Huber about that, he told me
> preferred the 845, as the output Z is much lower, and
> the OPT-xfr could be made with less high Z and so on,
> the drawback being higher demands on the drive capability.
>
> could folks who have heard / compared / built such beast
> give me a reason for choose one or the other ?
>
> or has it already been discussed and I can find it in the
> archives ?
>
> thanks a lot,
> Hartmut from Munich
Remember that bass is a function of inductance with respect to plate
resistance....in other words...don't fall in to the trap of comparing
valves by frequency response like most folks do... Compare the 845 and
211 with the correct inductance for a given response.
Here is how plate resistance, plate load and inductance are
related..............
Put the plate resistance and plate load in parallel...obviously the
plate resistance will dominate with triodes...
Then divide this by (2*pi*fr)..... Wa-La...
and now the inductance required for your -3dB point @ fr in the bass...
Since -3dB is 45 degree shift as well........you want to extend this
point further down in order to have acceptable performance at 20 Hz... I
prefer putting the -3dB point at 3Hz..
When comparing 845 with 211 valves..... another BS scheme is to use
plate loads that are 2 times the plate resistance as pointed out in some
text....this method is great for kitchen radios ...but not in
HI-FI........... when comparing distortion and adjusting load lines on
both valves to have fairly close distortions it happens that the plate
loads work out to be in the same range...
The advantage to that would be increased damping for the valve with
lower plate resistance .thus having less power efficiency...but who
cares about that.. when going for sound...
845 drive requirements are in the range of 100 to 200 volts
211 drive requirements are in the range of 40 to 80 volts
If miller effects are accounted for in design in order to acieve
apropriate slew rates for given drive requirements then both valves will
be fairly similair BUT now you can here differences in the valve
type..... Most folks who compare these valves are not hearing the
valve..but instead are hearing a typical plate loaded driver falling on
it's face into these type of loads 211 and 845 valves present...
Either valve can perform exceptional provided the driver and the
transformers are well designed for the task...
CHEERS
CM
=========================================================================
From: Hartmut <Hartmut.Quaschik@mch.sni.de>
Subject: 211 vs. 845
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 18:44:17 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n353
Joe-netters,
when I visited Thomas Mayer, I had the chance to listen
his Sakuma style 211 power amp and liked it very much,
resolution, flow of music and so on are extremely good,
and that best is neutral, too. The only slight flaw I
could detect was the bass being a bit less solid than I was
used to.
When I talked to Manfred Huber about that, he told me
preferred the 845, as the output Z is much lower, and
the OPT-xfr could be made with less high Z and so on,
the drawback being higher demands on the drive capability.
could folks who have heard / compared / built such beast
give me a reason for choose one or the other ?
or has it already been discussed and I can find it in the
archives ?
thanks a lot,
Hartmut from Munich
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 19:55:48 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n353
a disadvantage of 845 against 211 is that 845 needs a lot more swing at
its' grid. That is one of the harder eggs to boil in general. I finally
make 85 Vrms in my amp, with lo enough distortion
Since I heard an Ongaku I have biggest believe in 211 :-)
Guido
At 18:44 22-7-98 +0200, Hartmut wrote:
>Joe-netters,
>
>when I visited Thomas Mayer, I had the chance to listen
>his Sakuma style 211 power amp and liked it very much,
>resolution, flow of music and so on are extremely good,
>and that best is neutral, too. The only slight flaw I
>could detect was the bass being a bit less solid than I was
>used to.
>
>When I talked to Manfred Huber about that, he told me
>preferred the 845, as the output Z is much lower, and
>the OPT-xfr could be made with less high Z and so on,
>the drawback being higher demands on the drive capability.
>
>could folks who have heard / compared / built such beast
>give me a reason for choose one or the other ?
>
>or has it already been discussed and I can find it in the
>archives ?
>
>thanks a lot,
>Hartmut from Munich
>
>
=========================================================================
From: "Mayer, Thomas" <Thomas.Mayer@VLSI.com>
Subject: RE: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 07:32:19 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n355
Hartmut,
I think the flaw in the bass you noticed is related
to the speakers I use rather than the 211 tube.
The woofer with its 170mm diameter is limited at the
bottem end, especially with the largish room they
have to fill with bass.
Since I have some 845's on hand we can do a comparison.
Sure the impedance won't be matched perfectly for the
845, but it should give some impression.
The main reason why I choose the 211 over the 845 is the
voltage swing they need. It is a quite tough job to get
400V peak to peak swing of good quality, especially if
you like to have 6dB or more headroom in each stage.
Since I'm using another 211 as driver it's up to the task
to provide this kind of swing, so let's compare both tubes.
Ciao ... Thomas
P.S.: By the way, this weekend the ACR horn kit will be ready
to play ...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hartmut [mailto:Hartmut.Quaschik@mch.sni.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 1998 6:44 PM
> To: sound practice list
> Subject: 211 vs. 845
>
>
> Joe-netters,
>
> when I visited Thomas Mayer, I had the chance to listen
> his Sakuma style 211 power amp and liked it very much,
> resolution, flow of music and so on are extremely good,
> and that best is neutral, too. The only slight flaw I
> could detect was the bass being a bit less solid than I was
> used to.
>
> When I talked to Manfred Huber about that, he told me
> preferred the 845, as the output Z is much lower, and
> the OPT-xfr could be made with less high Z and so on,
> the drawback being higher demands on the drive capability.
>
> could folks who have heard / compared / built such beast
> give me a reason for choose one or the other ?
>
> or has it already been discussed and I can find it in the
> archives ?
>
> thanks a lot,
> Hartmut from Munich
>
=========================================================================
From: "Mayer, Thomas" <Thomas.Mayer@VLSI.com>
Subject: RE: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:20:07 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n355
All,
I read a lot of messages these days like :
tube x has crisp top end while tube y has
authorative bass ... etc.
I personally think that the circuit around a
tube has much more influence on the final sound than
the tube itself. You can build amps with lousy
bass using low Rp tubes and you can built amps
with good bass using high Rp tubes. It might be
more difficult with the latter but it can be done.
Thanks to Hartmut for pointing out his findings with
my set up.
I'll have some checking on this and also will do
some measurements. I'll also arrange for a comparison
between 211 and 845.
When I started my project I didn't choose the 211 as
my output tube because of the particular sound it is
supposed to have, but for a few different reasons, some
of them appear to be quite "silly". But hey, I built
these things also for the mere fun of DIY.
- - I already had a 300B amp, so I wanted to have something
different.
- - I wanted more power than the 300B can deliver (my speakers
are around 92dB).
- - The idea of fiddling around with voltages over 1000V
had some kind of adventure like appeal to me.
- - I liked the physical appearance of this tube.
- - And finally I chose it over the 845 for two reasons :
1.) Easier to drive
2.) Could still get some NOS samples
Ciao ... Thomas
=========================================================================
From: Acrosound@aol.com
Subject: Re: RE: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 11:52:59 EDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n355
In a message dated 7/23/98 9:42:41 AM, Bart wrote:
>Gordon,
>
>I am highly surprised at your extremism. And this from a 45 / 2A3 man!
Bart: the fact that Gordon does like the 45/2A3 tubes (and especially the
45...if I have his prefs in the right order) should illustrate amply that his
position may not be one of an unexamined extreme..... perhaps he has
reasons....didn't he list some reasons in his post?
>So the 211 & 845 are only good for sub-woofers. Shame on you!
Shame? Na. My experience with gordon (having worked with him for years) is
that he thorougly thinks out his strategies and generally has good reasons for
doing what he does. And it is hard to argue with the many, many successes that
he has earned for himself.
>So now KR Enterprises are GOD's gift to all things SET!
This is an *extreme* conclusion drawn from his post....
>I dont suppose you happen to be a distributor of theirs? (This is not an
>accusation) Enthusiasm running away??
Again, in my experience, Gordon does not design from fashion. and last I knew
he was not the distributor of these products....
>Bart (long live the 211 & 845 The Kings of SET)
"The Kings of SET".....do I sense perhaps a bit of unbridled "enthusiasm"
being displayed here?
>p.s. Maybe when I'm done and have the bucks we can have showdown at OK VSAC
>(warning parallel 845's with mega big 5K trannies not checked at the bar!!
:-)
And what is the performance of the "mega big trannies"....big doesn't mean
better, does it (in-and-of-itself)? Remember the post where Paul Joppa
pointed out some of the real world limitations of (power response vs. freq
response vs. pri L) of some "mega" (as you describe the unit) large tranneys?
"Showdowns" at the OK corral is aesthetically _______. (fill in the
blank)......
Sorry folks....but if my friend JC can stick up for his friend....this post
called for me to state a few opinions as well....
Mikey
=========================================================================
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
Subject: RE: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 13:00:56 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n355
At 12:29 AM +1000 7/24/98, Bart Shepherd wrote:
>Gordon,
>
>I am highly surprised at your extremism. And this from a 45 / 2A3 man!
>
>So the 211 & 845 are only good for sub-woofers. Shame on you!
>
>I have always suspected most of Joelist won't work above 600V but never
>understood why.
>My experiences have been most benign.
>
>Cost is a little more but then you have the volts to play with e.g. direct
>coupling.
I wrote a long post in reply to Gordon, found it churlish, and discarded
it, thinking, well, he is right in a lot of ways. For a one-time builder
who wants a quality amp, the KR tube is hard to beat, easy to work with,
probably one of the loveliest-sounding triodes made, etc., cost aside...
But my initial impulse was more in line with Bart's. I can't agree with
Gordon's cost comparison--last I understood the KRs were $1100 a pair.
There's no WAY I'm gonna save that much on a power supply to justify that
expense--I don't care how much more trouble a 1200 volt supply is. Really,
this about doubles the cost of an SE amp.
Sure the 845/211 requires more volts, but the Kron requires more current,
and that can make it just as expensive to build a PS for.
>
>So now KR Enterprises are GOD's gift to all things SET!
Well, in fact they may be--it's a gorgeous tube, and extremely well-made,
but the price--ouch, ouch and triple ouch!! I don't know if I'll be able
to do it again when I need a replacement pair--really.
I've heard some killer 845 amps, so I feel encouraged that it's something I
could work with and get good results. The KR is plug and play--bingo,
beautiful music, I've found it hard to make this tube sound BAD, and for
that reason, if you're only building one amp, for reasons of experience or
time you need to keep it simple, and you have the bucks, yeah, go for it
But if someone has some electronics experience and feels a bit bold you
can't blame them for rejecting the Kron out of hand for reasons of cost
alone.
If the cost of the KR tube has come way down, for some reason, I'll gladly
eat these words, but I don't think it has.
Grover Gardner
groverg@postoffice.att.net
=========================================================================
From: "J. Gordon Rankin" <waudio@cinti.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 98 10:08:57 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n355
Hartmut,
My take is this, neither the 211 or 845 are audio tubes at least at this
level. Maybe there is interest because the are cheap and higher powered
but.... really they are not.
Ok so let's compare what it takes to get a 25W unit running:
1) PSW at 1250V
2) Tranny in the 5K for 845 and 10K 211 at 80-100ma
3) Drive circuit
a) 845 very high drive voltage
c) 211 very high drive current
4) poor output
The cost of the above is actually more expensive than say a KR52B, sure
this tube cost is much more but let's look at the circuit.
1) PSW at 500V or less
2) Tranny at 2500 100-120ma
3) Drive circuit about 80V rms
4) wide band great output
In the money you save for the output and PSW you can spend on the tube
and make a great amplifier instead of making a great sub woofer amplifier.
Gordon
=======> Wavelength Audio <=======
mailto:waudio@cinti.net
http://www.wavelengthaudio.com
ph.fx. 513-271-4186 USA
=========================================================================
From: "J. Gordon Rankin" <waudio@cinti.net>
Subject: RE: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 98 13:32:15 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n355
Bart,
>I am highly surprised at your extremism. And this from a 45 / 2A3 man!
First I do not like the 2A3 never have. The 45 is still my fav of all
time, I really do not like dual plate tubes or parallel tube amps and the
cost of NOS SP 2A3's and KR's are too high.
>So the 211 & 845 are only good for sub-woofers. Shame on you!
I have built many of 211/845 and most people that hear them say what
great bass, that's it...
>I have always suspected most of Joelist won't work above 600V but never
>understood why.
>My experiences have been most benign.
>
>Cost is a little more but then you have the volts to play with e.g. direct
>coupling.
>
>So now KR Enterprises are GOD's gift to all things SET!
No I prefer good old 300B's! But if you want power the KR's are the ones
to look into.
>What percentage of max dissipation do you suggest running them at.
>My experience is that in real cost of ownership, Power Supplies last lots
>longer than O/P tubes esp if the latter are driven hard.
I run mine at 55W's and get 32W at 2.5% distortion. They should last a
long time!
>What exactly is their track record in the scheme of things.
I have not had a failure in a more than 2 years. Actually better than WE.
>I dont suppose you happen to be a distributor of theirs? (This is not an
>accusation) Enthusiasm running away??
No, I am not selling any tubes just amplifiers.
So all you 845/211 uses give me some reason's why they are better than
the 52's instead of a lot of mouth!
Gordon
=======> Wavelength Audio <=======
mailto:waudio@cinti.net
http://www.wavelengthaudio.com
ph.fx. 513-271-4186 USA
=========================================================================
From: "J. Gordon Rankin" <waudio@cinti.net>
Subject: RE: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 98 13:36:38 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n355
Grover,
>But my initial impulse was more in line with Bart's. I can't agree with
>Gordon's cost comparison--last I understood the KRs were $1100 a pair.
>There's no WAY I'm gonna save that much on a power supply to justify that
>expense--I don't care how much more trouble a 1200 volt supply is. Really,
>this about doubles the cost of an SE amp.
The list is actually much less than 1100$.
>Sure the 845/211 requires more volts, but the Kron requires more current,
>and that can make it just as expensive to build a PS for.
Actually the current is the same, so calc the inductance you need at 2500
as compared to what is required for 5K and 10K, you are looking at a
pretty complex design of an output.
My point was that the combined cost of a complex output and high V PSW
makes the 52B a real canditate as an alternative. So many in this hobby
do not look at the big picture. Take a look you will be better off
sonically. Hay you don't have to beleieve me, try it out yourself, I have
and prefer the 300B family in toto over the 211/845.
Gordon
=======> Wavelength Audio <=======
mailto:waudio@cinti.net
http://www.wavelengthaudio.com
ph.fx. 513-271-4186 USA
=========================================================================
From: Bart Shepherd <bartonw@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: RE: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 00:29:24 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n355
Gordon,
I am highly surprised at your extremism. And this from a 45 / 2A3 man!
So the 211 & 845 are only good for sub-woofers. Shame on you!
I have always suspected most of Joelist won't work above 600V but never
understood why.
My experiences have been most benign.
Cost is a little more but then you have the volts to play with e.g. direct
coupling.
So now KR Enterprises are GOD's gift to all things SET!
What percentage of max dissipation do you suggest running them at.
My experience is that in real cost of ownership, Power Supplies last lots
longer than O/P tubes esp if the latter are driven hard.
What exactly is their track record in the scheme of things.
I dont suppose you happen to be a distributor of theirs? (This is not an
accusation) Enthusiasm running away??
Cheers,
Bart (long live the 211 & 845 The Kings of SET)
p.s. Maybe when I'm done and have the bucks we can have showdown at OK VSAC
(warning parallel 845's with mega big 5K trannies not checked at the bar!! :-)
- ----------
From: J. Gordon Rankin[SMTP:waudio@cinti.net]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 1:08 AM
To: sound practice list
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Hartmut,
My take is this, neither the 211 or 845 are audio tubes at least at this
level. Maybe there is interest because the are cheap and higher powered
but.... really they are not.
Ok so let's compare what it takes to get a 25W unit running:
1) PSW at 1250V
2) Tranny in the 5K for 845 and 10K 211 at 80-100ma
3) Drive circuit
a) 845 very high drive voltage
c) 211 very high drive current
4) poor output
The cost of the above is actually more expensive than say a KR52B, sure
this tube cost is much more but let's look at the circuit.
1) PSW at 500V or less
2) Tranny at 2500 100-120ma
3) Drive circuit about 80V rms
4) wide band great output
In the money you save for the output and PSW you can spend on the tube
and make a great amplifier instead of making a great sub woofer amplifier.
Gordon
=======> Wavelength Audio <=======
mailto:waudio@cinti.net
http://www.wavelengthaudio.com
ph.fx. 513-271-4186 USA
=========================================================================
From: "T. Loesch" <ezee_e@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:36:52 PDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n356
Hi all,
> I can't agree with Gordon's cost comparison--last I understood
> the KRs were $1100 a pair.
Outch. Chinese 211's are $120 the Pair....
>There's no WAY I'm gonna save that much on a power supply to
>justify that expense--I don't care how much more trouble a
>1200 volt supply is.
Use Solid Core Copper Coax with solid Polyethylen Insulation in the PSU,
that takes care of most of the Problems....
I can have 1200V DC 20uF Polyprops made for about $ 40 each. The
Transformers and Chokes will cost similar as for the Kron/Vaic.
So, if I use Chinese 211's I have $ 1,100 - $120 = $980 to spend on my
+B Supply. That leaves us with a cool 24 pieces of my 20uF Polyprops....
At that volume I can actually get a decent Volume Discount.
Anyway, 240uF @ 1200V is about 170 Joules per Channel....
And if I actually buy Elna Cerafines for a Ongaku like PSU (980V) I have
only got to pay $100 and even Black Gate Caps will only cost $500 for an
Ongaku Replica....
Now that looks to me a lot cheaper than a Set of Kron Valves....
Even if we buy NOS 211, we still come out on the long end of the Deal.
Lastly, the 211 (or 845) is a Standard Valve which still has
applications outside the Audio-World....
If KR and/or Vaic go bust, will there be enough VV52's to go around a
few times left?
>If the cost of the KR tube has come way down, for some reason,
>I'll gladly eat these words, but I don't think it has.
If it has, let me know. I'm not that fond messing about with 1200V DC
myself.... Seems essential though, if one wants more than a few
Watt's....
Kind regards Thorsten.
======================================
e-mail:
Thorsten@tnt-audio.com
Visit TNT-Audio on the Web - the only advertising
free audio web-zine.
http://www.tnt-audio.com
======================================
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
From: "T. Loesch" <ezee_e@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:22:48 PDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n356
Hi all,
>>P.S.: By the way, this weekend the ACR horn kit will be ready
>>to play ...
>
>Did I miss something? What's an ACR horn kit?
ACR is a Swiss/German Company which does (or used to do) Lasers, light
and Sounds for Disco's and has a offshot in High-End Speakers....
While I still was in Germany most of the Horn-Kit's in their Catalog
where essentially Klipsch Corner-Horn with Fostex/TAD Mid/Highrange
Drivers and wooden Horns.... Neat but too large for my taste....
Kind regards Thorsten.
======================================
e-mail:
Thorsten@tnt-audio.com
Visit TNT-Audio on the Web - the only advertising
free audio web-zine.
http://www.tnt-audio.com
======================================
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
From: "Doc B." <bottlehead@silverlink.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:57:42 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n356
I can't agree with
>Gordon's cost comparison--last I understood the KRs were $1100 a pair.
Actually the price has come down quite a bit from there. Along with the fact
that Ron Welborne was blowing out VV52s for $400 or so the pair a year back,
the list on the new 52Bs is more down around $775 the pair, I believe. I'm
not saying this is remotely cheap, I'm just trying to set the record
straight here about the price. KR seems to be trying to get somewhat more
real in their pricing, thanks to Ron's suggestions. The VV300B now lists at
$475 the pair.
Actually I'm not much help in this argument, because I like 52s and I like
845s. They have different characters, and both can be very revealing, fast
and extended, albeit with a different tonal balance. By the way, I'd like to
say that the guys who have been arguing that tubes don't sound different,
it's *only* how you design around them that determines how they sound are
indisputably full of shit.
Get a higher resolution system, listen again, and then call me back.
I will say I agree with Gordon (ow, not again!) good iron seems a little
easier to find for the lower Rp tubes (still waiting for an adventurous soul
to order a custom permalloy C core $$$ parallel feed OT for an 845!)
Also would like to say, let's get real, what are the opportunists selling
NOS 845s for these days? Certainly not bargain prices. I see guys asking
$125-$150 each for NOS 211s, so NOS 845s must really be up there. Shudder to
think how many 211s got smashed over the years up here in B-17 and Navy
transmitter country.
So the bottom line is who gives a shit? They're all expensive if you want
the best of a given type, none will sound its best unless you take great
care to make it sound its best, they all have shortcomings. You need to
chose a tube that complements the rest of the system to get the best sound,
not chose it because Gordon, or Mikey, or Bart or I say its good.
On last thing - my VV52s have run several hours at about 65W dissiaption
every day for a year with no apparent problems.
Doc B.
=========================================================================
From: merrec@mail1.jpl.nasa.gov (Christopher Merren)
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 14:37:14 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n356
Doc B. wrote:
By the way, I'd like to
say that the guys who have been arguing that tubes don't sound different,
it's *only* how you design around them that determines how they sound are
indisputably full of shit.
Get a higher resolution system, listen again, and then call me back.
In Case you may be refering to anything I might have posted ...lets me set
things straight....
I totally agree with the fact that different valve types have their own
characteristics .
My point was that in order to TRULY evaluate different valve types ..you need to
first eliminate the garbage around the valve....
For example ...a poor regulated B+, insuficient inductance and other poor
transformer specs, insuficient driver specs.....ect....
Obviously one can only do so much to achieving ideal surounding circuitry...But
non the less can design one with exceptional ability... This is what makes a
system achieve higher resolution.......It's at this point that one can now more
or less distinguish the nuances and subtleties between various valve
types.........as opposed to hearing other limiting influences surounding the
valve ...........
CHEERS
CM
P.S. ( I know I can't spell..)
=========================================================================
From: Acrosound@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:05:50 EDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n356
In a message dated 7/23/98 3:23:32 PM, Bottlehead wrote:
>By the way, I'd like to
>say that the guys who have been arguing that tubes don't sound different,
>it's *only* how you design around them that determines how they sound are
>indisputably full of shit.
>Get a higher resolution system, listen again, and then call me back.
great post Doc....speak'em the truth....no matter what a good bargain the lil
chinese 2A3 is....it
ain't no RCA bi-plate even....not even close...sorry Gordo, I do like the
2A3's para plates or not :=)....
>I will say I agree with Gordon (ow, not again!) good iron seems a little
>easier to find for the lower Rp tubes (still waiting for an adventurous soul
>to order a custom permalloy C core $$$ parallel feed OT for an 845!)
Did ya say your ordering a pair of these Doc? I recommend that ya go full
bore and get the
superpermendur....way groovier....
High Rp tubes drawing high current into a high impedance primary.....it's
physics here folks....
look up the formula for core energy factor.....the direct current squares and
the higher the pri impedance
the more L ya need. Inescapable...
Consider that to keep the DC flux reasonably low you want to minimize the
primary turns...but to keep the AC flux density low (all other things being
equal) you want to increase the turns....
throwing spark plug size gaps in the core robs the iron of it's
linearity....as the gap increases so doesn't the magnetizing current
required....
and when you see SE output tranneys that have a higher energy factor than a
lowly power supply filter
choke...you should scratch your head an wonder what's going on....
>So the bottom line is who gives a shit? They're all expensive if you want
>the best of a given type, none will sound its best unless you take great
>care to make it sound its best, they all have shortcomings. You need to
>chose a tube that complements the rest of the system to get the best sound,
>not chose it because Gordon, or Mikey, or Bart or I say its good.
Ya got it Doc.
See you in Seattle. VSAC rules :=). (just had to say it....make an absolute
type statement),,,,
Mikey
=========================================================================
From: Grego Sanguinetti <grego@lscpdx.latticesemi.com>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 18:30:20 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n356
> So all you 845/211 uses give me some reason's why they are better than
> the 52's instead of a lot of mouth!
>
> Gordon
Ha! B^) love it....
Like Gordon, but not as much, I have experimented with all three
tubes. I demostrated the 211 v.s. the 845 at VSAC and just published
an article for an amp that can be built with either the 845 or the VV52B.
I chose the 52B as the "standard" tube for the amp because it
had a better bottom end. The top end was just different, I never could
decide which I liked better. For my evaluation, the 52B is easier to
build with, again agreeing with Gordon. I second his point about the
output impedance. But then so does the 45... fortunately it doesn't
need the current.
From my experiments, I don't like the sound of a 52B driven real hard.
I also did not like any of the lower current operating points.
The 845 really changes clothes with different operation conditions
so be sure to really move it around before you decide one way or
the other.
However the choice was not overwhelming at all. I still love
the sound I have been able to get from an 845. I still like
playing with it alot. In fact I believe my next publication will
be a PP845 that is a real kick in the pants.
But, for big tubes, the 52B is definately a standard to judge
by.
For the medium tubes, the 300B.
But I will take an 801 over a 45 for the low end, just by
a smidgen though.
Heck they are all fine and all can produce great sound.
I still haven't gotten a 211 design that I really like yet.
Maybe I will try again sometime but for now there are too
many other choices...
- -grego
=========================================================================
From: tubesguy@mail.execpc.com (Patrick Currie)
Subject: RE: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 18:32:04 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n356
>So all you 845/211 uses give me some reason's why they are better than
>the 52's instead of a lot of mouth!
>
>Gordon
Shoot, I'll give it a try: 845s light up way prettier, and they cost $27,
but of course that's for one, rather than a pair. - Pat, Paradildo owner
Pat Currie (tubesguy@execpc.com)
=========================================================================
From: davidbarnett@aristotle.net (David Barnett)
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 18:37:02 GMT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n356
On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 07:32:19 -0700, "Mayer, Thomas"
<Thomas.Mayer@VLSI.com> wrote:
>P.S.: By the way, this weekend the ACR horn kit will be ready
>to play ...
Did I miss something? What's an ACR horn kit?
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: "Doc B." <bottlehead@silverlink.net>
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 19:43:18 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n356
>
>Did ya say your ordering a pair of these Doc? I recommend that ya go full
>bore and get the
>superpermendur....way groovier....
>
Only if you personally mine the silver foil used for the primary, and
cloisonne a picture of my mom on the titanium and gold alloy bell ends.
B.
=========================================================================
From: Acrosound@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:45:59 EDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n356
In a message dated 7/23/98 8:39:25 PM, grego wrote:
>
>But I will take an 801 over a 45 for the low end, just by
>a smidgen though.
Hello Grego: Have you monkeyed around with the 71A or it's variants (171)?
Just curious. Anyone else built with the 71A tube?
Mikey
=========================================================================
From: "Johari Yip" <hfyip@pacific.net.sg>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:48:46 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n356
- ----------
> From: Grego Sanguinetti <grego@lscpdx.latticesemi.com>
> To: sound@deliverator.io.com
> Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
> Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 9:30 AM
>
> The 845 really changes clothes with different operation conditions
> so be sure to really move it around before you decide one way or
> the other.
>
> However the choice was not overwhelming at all. I still love
> the sound I have been able to get from an 845. I still like
> playing with it alot. In fact I believe my next publication will
> be a PP845 that is a real kick in the pants.
Grego
Which publication would that be? Don't mean asking you to let the cat out
of the basket but a general description of the circuit topology would be
great.
Cheers,
Johari
=========================================================================
From: Paul Joppa <pdj@ISDNseattle.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:58:30 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n357
Great post, Christopher! Glad somebody brought up these points... I've
added some comments interspersed below...
- -Paul Joppa
Christopher Merren wrote:
> <... snipped, in reply to Hartmut's 211 -vs- 845 question ...>
> Remember that bass is a function of inductance with respect to plate
> resistance....in other words...don't fall in to the trap of comparing
> valves by frequency response like most folks do... Compare the 845 and
> 211 with the correct inductance for a given response.
> Here is how plate resistance, plate load and inductance are
> related..............
> Put the plate resistance and plate load in parallel...obviously the
> plate resistance will dominate with triodes...
> Then divide this by (2*pi*fr)..... Wa-La...
> and now the inductance required for your -3dB point @ fr in the bass...
Working from memory here, bu I think 845 is 1700 ohms, 211 is 3800?
Now assume that the load resistance is 2 times plate resistance, then
the effective resistance is 1133 and 2533...
> Since -3dB is 45 degree shift as well........you want to extend this
> point further down in order to have acceptable performance at 20 Hz... I
> prefer putting the -3dB point at 3Hz..
...or 134H for 211, 60H for 845. Note that this gives a power
bandwidth down to about 10Hz, not 3Hz.
These values are exceptionally difficult to make, if any treble is
also desired. And the 211 unit is many times harder than the 845 in
this case. A comparable 211 transformer would be many times more
expensive than an 845 unit, I'd think. Most available units have less
than half this inductance I think. That's probably why 211s are said
to be weak in the bass - they don't use transformers with enough
inductance, because you can't get such beasts.
The usual hifi recommendation is for 10k for either (see below), and
the Ongaku is 16kohms. That won't affect the 3dB frequency much, but
it will raise the power LF limit more than an octave - to get it back
you need even more inductance. At these high inductances, and with
large cores as would be needed, parasitic capacitance in the
transformer would be especially hard to eliminate, and would even make
a parafeed choke difficult.
> When comparing 845 with 211 valves..... another BS scheme is to use
> plate loads that are 2 times the plate resistance as pointed out in some
> text....this method is great for kitchen radios ...but not in
> HI-FI........... when comparing distortion and adjusting load lines on
> both valves to have fairly close distortions it happens that the plate
> loads work out to be in the same range...
Not clear what you meant here?? ...so the following bits may be
irrelevant...
If you run the tubes low and hot, RL=2rp is reasonable. In this case,
I'd go for plate volts/plate current = 4 times plate resistance - 211
at 950v and 63mA at 60 watts, 845 at 824v/121mA at 100w. Assuming the
plate resistances were measured at these currents...
I believe the 211 is less linear than the 845 at low current/high
voltages, so for the same distortion you have to run it relatively
lower and hotter. If you match the distortion, you mismatch the
damping factor, leading to invalid bass comparisons.
> The advantage to that would be increased damping for the valve with
> lower plate resistance .thus having less power efficiency...but who
> cares about that.. when going for sound...
> 845 drive requirements are in the range of 100 to 200 volts
> 211 drive requirements are in the range of 40 to 80 volts
... but 211 Miller capacitance is bigger (2-3 times?) so the driver
current requirement is similar in spite of lower voltage requirement.
> If miller effects are accounted for in design in order to acieve
> apropriate slew rates for given drive requirements then both valves will
> be fairly similair BUT now you can here differences in the valve
> type..... Most folks who compare these valves are not hearing the
> valve..but instead are hearing a typical plate loaded driver falling on
> it's face into these type of loads 211 and 845 valves present...
> Either valve can perform exceptional provided the driver and the
> transformers are well designed for the task...
> CHEERS
> CM
=========================================================================
From: Paul Joppa <pdj@ISDNseattle.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 22:57:03 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n357
Swore I wasn't going to get into this, but here's a comment or two:
- -Paul Joppa
Grover Gardner wrote:
>
> I wrote a long post in reply to Gordon, found it churlish, and discarded
> it, thinking, well, he is right in a lot of ways. For a one-time builder
> who wants a quality amp, the KR tube is hard to beat, easy to work with,
> probably one of the loveliest-sounding triodes made, etc., cost aside...
Another advantage for starting out: you can use a cheap imitation 300B
while debugging the circuit; don't have to cough up the big bucks
until you're pretty sure it's what you want.
> But my initial impulse was more in line with Bart's. I can't agree with
> Gordon's cost comparison--last I understood the KRs were $1100 a pair.
> There's no WAY I'm gonna save that much on a power supply to justify that
> expense--I don't care how much more trouble a 1200 volt supply is. Really,
> this about doubles the cost of an SE amp.
KR's, AVVT's, and WE's all claim 10,000 hours or more of performance -
the cost per hour is just not that bad, if you are sure you'll be
listening to the amp for that long. I don't have any of those, but I
expect to build amps for many more years before I know what I really
like. Gordon, however, has been doing this for a while...
On other cost point - a 10k transformer has 4 times the inductance of
a 2500 ohm one. It probably has 4 times the capacitance, to which it
is 4 times more sensitive, so the capacitance pole has moved down 4
octaves (Mikey, correct me if I'm wrong!) So you gotta go to
extraordinary lengths to get any treble (or use fewer turns and give
up some bass). And the capacitance probably sounds worse than the
leakage inductance, caps are usually nastier than inductances. So now
you start looking for Teflon coated wire, but Teflon creeps and you've
got 1200 volts inside, ... The point being, your $1100 cost savings
will evaporate pretty fast if you want really good transformers for
your big transmitter tubes.
> Sure the 845/211 requires more volts, but the Kron requires more current,
> and that can make it just as expensive to build a PS for.
One reason not mentioned yet is simply that anything over 400-500v is
progressively more likely to reward mistakes with death. Not that 400v
is "safe", but the high voltages are pretty scary.
...I snipped the rest...
=========================================================================
From: "Doc B." <bottlehead@silverlink.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 07:42:27 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n357
>
>One reason not mentioned yet is simply that anything over 400-500v is
>progressively more likely to reward mistakes with death. Not that 400v
>is "safe", but the high voltages are pretty scary.
>
Careful here! 400V can kill you just as dead. If I was a Fluke meter, I'd
agree with you, I've seen a few of them die due to high voltages, but for
bottleheads, current supply is a dominating ingredient in the recipe for
cooked organs, and for a given power consumption, I imagine a VV52 power
supply at 150 mA could stop your heart just about as well as an 845 PS at 80
mA, maybe better. I think we don't need 'even more' respect for V above
500V, as much as we need adequate respect for the current capability of any
of these higher current projects we play with.
Personally I am now a lot more respectful of the primary side of my
circuits. I zapped the shit out myself a couple weeks back by stupidly
putting fingers on the exposed power cord pins out of sight on the back of
an old Ampex tape deck. The scary part was my hand didn't kick back
naturally like it tends to when I've hit higher voltages, it took some
effort to move it. Luckily the current path was from one finger to the other
in one hand.
Ever build the classic old hot dog cooker by attaching the ends of a power
cord to a couple of nails pounded thru a board, skewering the dog over each
nail, and plugging in the cord? You can cook a dog right thru in seconds,
leave it on a bit longer and it will ignite. The lowly 120V mains can put a
lot of amps through your heart. We're talkin cardiac BBQ.
Isolation transformers on the bench are a good thing, but most folks don't
have big enough ones to work with big amps, so you have the potential (pun
intended) to zap yourself at a variety of potentials when testing an amp
plugged directly into the mains.
Doc B.
=========================================================================
From: "T. Loesch" <ezee_e@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:30:08 PDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n357
Yo Dudettes and Dudes,
>I zapped the shit out myself a couple weeks back by stupidly
>putting fingers on the exposed power cord pins out of sight on
>the back of an old Ampex tape deck. The scary part was my hand
>didn't kick back naturally like it tends to when I've hit higher
>voltages, it took some effort to move it.
I once got stuck on a +B Line in a High Power Guitar Amp.... Again it
was only current though one Hand (so my heart still beats) but it gave
me some nasty burns. I could not even take my hand away immediatly....
Let a major Dude (major on being zapped by anything from 220V 50Hz Mains
over 380V 3-Phase to about +800V DC) tell all of you, had I not worn
rubber sole Shoes and kept one hand in the Pocket, I'd not be typing
this here....
So have fun with your Amp's BUT TAKE CARE....
Later Thorsten
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
From: An-shyang Chu <achu@sandia.gov>
Subject: Re[2]: 211 vs. 845
Date: 24 Jul 1998 09:49:19 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n357
Totally agree with Doc here.... after getting a coworker back from a 2500V-5A
power supply zap (through air, from his POINTING finger to the other hand
resting on the control rack). I am scared shitless with my "little" 300V-160mA
amp power supply... always!!
hopper
_______________________________________________________________________________
Doc B says....
Careful here! 400V can kill you just as dead. If I was a Fluke meter, I'd
agree with you, I've seen a few of them die due to high voltages, but for
bottleheads, current supply is a dominating ingredient in the recipe for
cooked organs, and for a given power consumption, I imagine a VV52 power
supply at 150 mA could stop your heart just about as well as an 845 PS at 80
mA, maybe better. I think we don't need 'even more' respect for V above
500V, as much as we need adequate respect for the current capability of any
of these higher current projects we play with.
Personally I am now a lot more respectful of the primary side of my
circuits. I zapped the shit out myself a couple weeks back by stupidly
putting fingers on the exposed power cord pins out of sight on the back of
an old Ampex tape deck. The scary part was my hand didn't kick back
naturally like it tends to when I've hit higher voltages, it took some
effort to move it. Luckily the current path was from one finger to the other
in one hand.
.
=========================================================================
From: "Chris Beck" <cbeck@brewercompany.com>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:11:31 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n357
Gordon,
Just curious as to why you feel that way about the 811/572 series tubes? I
am running the SV572-10 tube in a very simple circuit, 500V, 120mA, for 10
watts. 5K primary Z, and freq. resp. flat from 18Hz to past 40kHz. at mid
power. LOTS of tight bass and very clean highs. Rated Rp is 2100 ohms.
One thing they also have going for them is they are inexpensive, which at
this stage for me, is key, as I am experimenting with all sorts of things.
I'll admit, I have very little experience at this all, so I'm trying to
learn all I can about how Rp, load Z, inductance, capacitance, etc. all
inter-relate. It sure is a blast, though!
Thanks!
Chris Beck
See my amps web page at: http://www.execpc.com/~n9zes/index.htm
- ----------
> From: J. Gordon Rankin
<snip>
> So I add another negative to the 211/845 column graphite plates. To me
> this actually increases the rp of the tube. What I measured on the WE284
> was much lower than that of the std RCA 845 (Don't ask for values almost
> 8 years ago now). This is why I think even less of the 811/572 camp.
>
>
> Gordon
>
=========================================================================
From: Hartmut <Hartmut.Quaschik@mch.sni.de>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:18:53 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n357
David Barnett wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 07:32:19 -0700, "Mayer, Thomas"
> <Thomas.Mayer@VLSI.com> wrote:
>
> >P.S.: By the way, this weekend the ACR horn kit will be ready
> >to play ...
>
> Did I miss something? What's an ACR horn kit?
David,
ACR is the Fostex distributor's name in Germany.
The setup Thomas Mayer refers to,
comprises Fostex 12 inch bass in back loaded horn
with wooden mid horn, FD600 driver, and a horn tweeter
regards,
Hartmut from Munich
=========================================================================
From: "J. Gordon Rankin" <waudio@cinti.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 98 09:53:20 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n357
Gang,
I don't get it... I name a few reasons why I would prefer the 52B's over
the 211/845. So I ask again give me the reasons (other than price) of why
I should even remotely look at those graphite eating tubes.
When I did the Sole amplifier based on the 845 I had the rare op to use
WE284 that are not graphite, set it too the same current and man what a
difference. The metal plate made such a difference in the sound. But then
again even in those days they went for a pretty penny.
So I add another negative to the 211/845 column graphite plates. To me
this actually increases the rp of the tube. What I measured on the WE284
was much lower than that of the std RCA 845 (Don't ask for values almost
8 years ago now). This is why I think even less of the 811/572 camp.
So I say show me the beef (or beefcake for you South Park fans!).
Gordon
=======> Wavelength Audio <=======
mailto:waudio@cinti.net
http://www.wavelengthaudio.com
ph.fx. 513-271-4186 USA
=========================================================================
From: Grego Sanguinetti <grego@lscpdx.latticesemi.com>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:45:41 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n358
On Fri, Jul 24, 1998 at 11:48:46AM +0800, Johari Yip wrote:
> ----------
> > From: Grego Sanguinetti <grego@lscpdx.latticesemi.com>
...
> > However the choice was not overwhelming at all. I still love
> > the sound I have been able to get from an 845. I still like
> > playing with it alot. In fact I believe my next publication will
> > be a PP845 that is a real kick in the pants.
>
> Grego
>
> Which publication would that be? Don't mean asking you to let the cat out
> of the basket but a general description of the circuit topology would be
> great.
That has not been determined. I don't want to make a committment
right now because life just got even more complicated. Yesterday I
broke ground (actually the contractors did) on a brand new shop
building. Very exciting stuff!! But I have to disconnect the underground
service feed to my existing shop building since it is in the way.
I will be without 220v power to my shop for at least a month.
All of this to say that I won't be doing any development for a while.
Although the PP845 amp was built at least two years ago, I never
could decide which of the last four drivers I liked the best. I need
to get it back out of the boxes and finalize that before I can finish
the article! It may also wait behind a headphone amp project.
Basic topology used an input transformer/phase splitter followed
by gain/driver stage(s) and the output stage. Some use of unique
topology in the drivers, stolen from the ancients, which will be
the focus.
A couple of people on this list have communicated to me about PP845
amps that they build, or were building. Perhaps they would be coaxed
to share some info.
Ed Billeci built one a number of years ago using very standard
topology and surplus parts. 6SN7 gain stages as I remember. I always
like that amp. One night he hit the jackpot with a biamped scheme
using that amp for bass and a tiny SE amp for highs. 2x15"s in bass
and big altec 805? horns on top. Previous attempts had not sounded
right but that night it came together so well. Of course he had to
change it all the next day....
- -grego
=========================================================================
From: Grego Sanguinetti <grego@lscpdx.latticesemi.com>
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:29:45 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n358
On Thu, Jul 23, 1998 at 09:45:59PM -0400, Acrosound@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hello Grego: Have you monkeyed around with the 71A or it's variants (171)?
>
Hi Mikey,
Only for line level stuff. I haven't tried building any micro power
amps, at least for speaker use. I was thinking of the 71A for that
little HP amp project we were talking about. But I was affraid that
it would be a too brilliant for cans like AKG, Sony and Sennhieser.
Way back in the biggining of this list, JC mentioned some ideas for
71A line stages which I tried and liked. His SP tuned pipe system
article shows a variant.
It sure is a pretty tube.
- -grego (sheesh, think I have posted more this morning than in
the last 6 months. I am procrastinating at work today...)
=========================================================================
From: tubesguy@mail.execpc.com (Patrick Currie)
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 13:05:56 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n358
I zapped the shit out myself a couple weeks back by stupidly
>putting fingers on the exposed power cord pins out of sight on the back of
>an old Ampex tape deck. The scary part was my hand didn't kick back
>naturally like it tends to when I've hit higher voltages, it took some
>effort to move it.
>Doc B.
AC, right? Heard some fellas talking the other day about how they
preferred getting zapped from a 240 line (if one had to get zapped, I
suppose) rather than a 120 line because the 240 line would knock them back,
and the 120 would keep them in the circuit. These guys were pros, too,
although they seemed to have a few funny little tics. - Pat
Pat Currie (tubesguy@execpc.com)
=========================================================================
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:08:46 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n358
At 9:53 AM -0500 7/24/98, J. Gordon Rankin wrote:
>Gang,
>
>I don't get it... I name a few reasons why I would prefer the 52B's over
>the 211/845. So I ask again give me the reasons (other than price) of why
>I should even remotely look at those graphite eating tubes.
Please, let me be clear, Gordon. I can't argue with your preferences. I've
heard several of your amps (in one case, thanks very much to you, and still
feeling guilty about the hassle it caused :-)) and I can't express enough
my admiration for the results you achieve. I use the VV52s currently with
Mikey's RS-520 OPTs, and I agree that these are terrific tubes. I also
have a pair of VV32s and these are equally wonderful, if not quite a match
for the 52s.
Naturally the purpose of your original post was that the KR tubes are a
logical choice for a one-time deal, easier to work with and sonically hard,
if not impossible, to beat. And I would agree, mostly. But I will also
maintain that I've heard some pretty wonderful things done with 845s. It's
worlds apart from what the KR tubes do, but it's valid and it's musical,
and I for one want to know more about it! A couple of years ago
circumstances conspired to allow me the financial freedom to purchase some
of the nice things I did, and I've had a ball. But those days are gone for
a while, and if I want to continue experimenting I've simply got to look at
cheaper things to play with.
Without meaning to criticize, I think I initally sensed a "why bother" tone
to your first post, and it did sort of get my back up, much as it did
Bart's. Your subsequent posts clarified a lot of things, and I regret any
combativeness you may have felt from my end. Your opinions are strong,
founded on experience and valuable to us all.
More importantly, I hope we continue to discuss this "output tube" issue,
because I think it's fundamental to SE in particular ande DIY in general.
Grover Gardner
groverg@postoffice.att.net
=========================================================================
From: Douglas Purl <dcp@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 17:42:24 -0600 (MDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n358
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Dave Cigna wrote:
> As you've already guessed, a spark jumped across the gap to my
> finger leaving a nice 3rd degree burn on my finger tip. The weird thing is
> that even though the current was confined to my hand the "shock wave" went
> all the way up my arm to my shoulder. My entire arm was numb for about 15
> minutes.
The great risk of electrical shock is not so much epidermal burns (though
these can be hideous) but deep-tissue burns. One of the complications of
such burns is that surrounding tissue insulates the burn area and prevents
the body from sinking away the heat generated by the electrical current.
Severe electrical burns can continue to cook the victim from within for as
long as an hour. Though some benefit can result from immediately packing
the affected limbs in ice, little can be done to mitigate deep burns in
the torso. One of the first things a physician is taught about electrical
burns is not to judge the seriousnesss of a burn by the appearance of the
skin.
The moral of the story is obvious.
Doug Purl
=========================================================================
From: merrec@mail1.jpl.nasa.gov (Christopher Merren)
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 17:47:03 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n358
Paul Joppa wrote:
> 134H for 211, 60H for 845. Note that this gives a power
> bandwidth down to about 10Hz, not 3Hz.
>
> These values are exceptionally difficult to make, if any treble is
> also desired. And the 211 unit is many times harder than the 845 in
> this case. A comparable 211 transformer would be many times more
> expensive than an 845 unit, I'd think. Most available units have less
> than half this inductance I think. That's probably why 211s are said
> to be weak in the bass - they don't use transformers with enough
> inductance, because you can't get such beasts.
>
I have no problems designing and wraping SE outputs with wide bandwidths ..in
the order of -3dB at 6Hz and 60Khz........... like a 8K load for 211...
This is with a flux density of 12,000 gauss at full output at 20Hz..... which
is about .4% core distortion at 20 Hz...
CHEERS
CM
=========================================================================
From: merrec@mail1.jpl.nasa.gov (Christopher Merren)
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 17:48:42 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n358
cerrem wrote:
> Paul Joppa wrote:
>
> > 134H for 211, 60H for 845. Note that this gives a power
> > bandwidth down to about 10Hz, not 3Hz.
> >
> > These values are exceptionally difficult to make, if any treble is
> > also desired. And the 211 unit is many times harder than the 845 in
> > this case. A comparable 211 transformer would be many times more
> > expensive than an 845 unit, I'd think. Most available units have less
> > than half this inductance I think. That's probably why 211s are said
> > to be weak in the bass - they don't use transformers with enough
> > inductance, because you can't get such beasts.
> >
>
> I have no problems designing and wraping SE outputs with wide bandwidths ..in
> the order of -3dB at 6Hz and 60Khz........... like a 8K load for 211...
> This is with a flux density of 12,000 gauss at full output at 20Hz..... which
> is about .4% core distortion at 20 Hz...
> CHEERS
> CM
=========================================================================
From: Dave Cigna <cigna@phy.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 18:14:23 -0400 (EDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n358
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, T. Loesch wrote:
> Yo Dudettes and Dudes,
>
> >I zapped the shit out myself a couple weeks back by stupidly
> >putting fingers on the exposed power cord pins out of sight on
> >the back of an old Ampex tape deck. The scary part was my hand
> >didn't kick back naturally like it tends to when I've hit higher
> >voltages, it took some effort to move it.
>
> I once got stuck on a +B Line in a High Power Guitar Amp.... Again it
> was only current though one Hand (so my heart still beats) but it gave
> me some nasty burns. I could not even take my hand away immediatly....
If we're comparing scars I've got two to show.
The first involves an old Craftsman belt sander with a beautifully
sculpted, polished aluminum housing. I was was using it while kneeling on
a concrete garage floor, and the hot side of the 120VAC made contact with
the metal housing. As others have mentioned, AC tends to cause paralysis
and I couldn't let go of the sander. In order to get it out of my hands I
had to swing it around like a discus and throw it across the garage. (I
replaced the power cord with a grounded 3-pronger. I still have the sander
and I love it!)
The sander got my heart pounding, but in the end it didn't really hurt.
On the other hand (or arm in this case) I was once building a 3KV supply
with a stack of caps and a voltage multiplying circuit. This was a very
low current affair -- no more than a couple of mA. I had my left hand on
the grounded chassis and my middle finger made it to within about 1/4 inch
of the HT. (At least I'm guessing it was 1/4 inch, I didn't have time to
measure.) As you've already guessed, a spark jumped across the gap to my
finger leaving a nice 3rd degree burn on my finger tip. The weird thing is
that even though the current was confined to my hand the "shock wave" went
all the way up my arm to my shoulder. My entire arm was numb for about 15
minutes. This was in the morning. I'm truly ashamed and embarrassed to
say that I did exactly the same thing right after lunch. After sitting on
my stool and just staring straight ahead for 20 minutes I turned
everything off and took the rest of the day off. Somebody should just
shoot me.
Anyway, though it's true that a couple dozen volts can kill you, my
conclusion is that high voltages really are more dangerous and WAY scarier
if you happen to experience them first hand (pun intended.)
-- Dave
=========================================================================
From: "Johari Yip" <hfyip@pacific.net.sg>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 08:59:59 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n358
Geez, it's like telling war stories and showing off battle scars. Well, I
did have one scary experience of such and it's during my vocational
education days. Here in Singapore, mains are 220V 50Hz. It happened when
the bench drill that we're using had a loose electrical connection and
during the repair, the tip of a screwdriver, accidentally touched the main
line. Man, that was one of the most frightening experience of my life.
Imagine one inch of the tip being disintegrate and the screwdriver flow off
my hands and landed about ten meters away. Well, the rest of that day is
like I'm in "nowhere land" thinking what would've happen if it's my hand
and not the screwdriver.
Lucky to be here writing to you guys and I thank god for that.
Cheers,
Johari
- ----------
> From: T. Loesch <ezee_e@hotmail.com>
> To: sound@deliverator.io.com; bottlehead@silverlink.net
> Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
> Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 11:30 PM
>
> Yo Dudettes and Dudes,
>
> >I zapped the shit out myself a couple weeks back by stupidly
> >putting fingers on the exposed power cord pins out of sight on
> >the back of an old Ampex tape deck. The scary part was my hand
> >didn't kick back naturally like it tends to when I've hit higher
> >voltages, it took some effort to move it.
>
> I once got stuck on a +B Line in a High Power Guitar Amp.... Again it
> was only current though one Hand (so my heart still beats) but it gave
> me some nasty burns. I could not even take my hand away immediatly....
>
> Let a major Dude (major on being zapped by anything from 220V 50Hz Mains
> over 380V 3-Phase to about +800V DC) tell all of you, had I not worn
> rubber sole Shoes and kept one hand in the Pocket, I'd not be typing
> this here....
>
> So have fun with your Amp's BUT TAKE CARE....
>
> Later Thorsten
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
From: "Doc B." <bottlehead@silverlink.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 21:01:16 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n359
>Ooh, now I smell a REAL battle brewing ;-).
Nah, Paul's my homey. He's a very cool cat, he'll just say, "sounds
interesting, why not bring it to VSAC, and share it with us".
Hey speaking of which, make your room reservations for VSAC like *now* if
you're coming to the show! The joint is filling up. 360-698-1000. Tell them
you're attending the show, or they'll tell you there are no vacancies.
Doc B.
=========================================================================
From: Ron Bales <rbales@gte.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 22:00:35 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n359
Johari Yip wrote:
>
> Agree with you here. You can never be too careful. Especially so for
> married souls like us. Wondered how the insurance guys will handle this?
>
> Johari
I used to do claims investigation, if your policy is less than 2 years old,
expect an investigation into whether there was any misrepresentation on
your application for insurance, otherwise it is a simple accidental death,
unless the coroner thinks it is suicide, which in most policies is also
considered a form of accidental death.
The widow should allow the insurance company about 6 weeks to pay the claim
before retaining an attorney. Otherwise she is simply giving him a third
of the money for doing nothing more than writing a letter that will only be
filed and which will have no effect on the conduct of the insurance
company.
Insurance practice in other countries will vary.
Try not to die.
ROn
=========================================================================
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 22:24:06 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n359
At 5:47 PM -0700 7/24/98, Christopher Merren wrote:
>Paul Joppa wrote:
>
>> 134H for 211, 60H for 845. Note that this gives a power
>> bandwidth down to about 10Hz, not 3Hz.
>>
>> These values are exceptionally difficult to make, if any treble is
>> also desired. And the 211 unit is many times harder than the 845 in
>> this case. A comparable 211 transformer would be many times more
>> expensive than an 845 unit, I'd think. Most available units have less
>> than half this inductance I think. That's probably why 211s are said
>> to be weak in the bass - they don't use transformers with enough
>> inductance, because you can't get such beasts.
>>
>
>I have no problems designing and wraping SE outputs with wide bandwidths ..in
>the order of -3dB at 6Hz and 60Khz........... like a 8K load for 211...
>This is with a flux density of 12,000 gauss at full output at 20Hz..... which
>is about .4% core distortion at 20 Hz...
>CHEERS
>CM
Ooh, now I smell a REAL battle brewing ;-).
Grover Gardner
groverg@postoffice.att.net
=========================================================================
From: "Johari Yip" <hfyip@pacific.net.sg>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 211 vs. 845
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 09:03:47 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n359
- ----------
> From: An-shyang Chu <achu@sandia.gov>
> To: IPM Return requested <bottlehead@silverlink.net>; IPM Return
requested <sound@deliverator.io.com>
> Subject: Re[2]: 211 vs. 845
> Date: Friday, July 24, 1998 11:49 PM
>
>
> Totally agree with Doc here.... after getting a coworker back from a
2500V-5A
> power supply zap (through air, from his POINTING finger to the other hand
> resting on the control rack). I am scared shitless with my "little"
300V-160mA
> amp power supply... always!!
>
> hopper
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
Chu
Agree with you here. You can never be too careful. Especially so for
married souls like us. Wondered how the insurance guys will handle this?
Johari
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: RE: 211 vs. 845
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 18:10:43 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n359
At 09:20 23-7-98 -0700, Mayer, Thomas wrote:
>
>All,
>
>I read a lot of messages these days like :
>
>tube x has crisp top end while tube y has
>authorative bass ... etc.
>
>I personally think that the circuit around a
>tube has much more influence on the final sound than
>the tube itself.
Ever compared two different brands of 300b in the same circuit ?
One might stink, the other may shine
All components count ! One more then the other
Another aspect is that you need a proper driver to make a (good) 300b sing
Guido
You can build amps with lousy
>bass using low Rp tubes and you can built amps
>with good bass using high Rp tubes. It might be
>more difficult with the latter but it can be done.
>
>Thanks to Hartmut for pointing out his findings with
>my set up.
>
>I'll have some checking on this and also will do
>some measurements. I'll also arrange for a comparison
>between 211 and 845.
>
>When I started my project I didn't choose the 211 as
>my output tube because of the particular sound it is
>supposed to have, but for a few different reasons, some
>of them appear to be quite "silly". But hey, I built
>these things also for the mere fun of DIY.
>
>- I already had a 300B amp, so I wanted to have something
> different.
>
>- I wanted more power than the 300B can deliver (my speakers
> are around 92dB).
>
>- The idea of fiddling around with voltages over 1000V
> had some kind of adventure like appeal to me.
>
>- I liked the physical appearance of this tube.
>
>- And finally I chose it over the 845 for two reasons :
> 1.) Easier to drive
> 2.) Could still get some NOS samples
>
>Ciao ... Thomas
>
>
=========================================================================
From: Paul Joppa <pdj@ISDNseattle.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 16:45:59 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n360
(History is appended below, for those who don't remember.)
Well, I don't see any need for a battle! :^) I never though it
impossible to make a suitable transformer for a 211, just more
difficult. Christopher's capability (-3dB at 6Hz, full power down to
20Hz) is however an octave short of the 3Hz/10Hz criterion mentioned
earlier in this thread - i.e. 1/2 the inductance needed to meet that
specification. My arithmetic may be off, but I figure this transformer
has roughly the same impedance/inductance relation as a DS-025 - not
bad, but to compare with a FS-030 (or whatever Mikey calls 'em now?!)
would be unfair in that sense.
Not that I'm not impressed with this spec! That's a mighty good
transformer. But it must at least have a good deal of interleaving,
and be fairly complex to wind. Can one buy such a transformer for say
$150 each? That would be, 8k:voice coil, 60H primary inductance at
60mA DC, capable of 500v peak AC at 20Hz along with the DC current,
<20mH leakage inductance, <330pF capacitance (all referred to the
primary)? I would be glad to learn of such a beast. It's more my speed
anyway; I'm not aiming for the very best. But for those who are, can
they buy a transformer twice as good (twice the primary inductance,
other specs unchanged) for less than $1000 per pair?
- -Paul
Grover Gardner wrote:
>
> At 5:47 PM -0700 7/24/98, Christopher Merren wrote:
> >Paul Joppa wrote:
> >
> >> 134H for 211, 60H for 845. Note that this gives a power
> >> bandwidth down to about 10Hz, not 3Hz.
> >>
> >> These values are exceptionally difficult to make, if any treble is
> >> also desired. And the 211 unit is many times harder than the 845 in
> >> this case. A comparable 211 transformer would be many times more
> >> expensive than an 845 unit, I'd think. Most available units have less
> >> than half this inductance I think. That's probably why 211s are said
> >> to be weak in the bass - they don't use transformers with enough
> >> inductance, because you can't get such beasts.
> >>
> >
> >I have no problems designing and wraping SE outputs with wide bandwidths ..in
> >the order of -3dB at 6Hz and 60Khz........... like a 8K load for 211...
> >This is with a flux density of 12,000 gauss at full output at 20Hz..... which
> >is about .4% core distortion at 20 Hz...
> >CHEERS
> >CM
>
> Ooh, now I smell a REAL battle brewing ;-).
>
> Grover Gardner
> groverg@postoffice.att.net
=========================================================================
From: Paul Joppa <pdj@ISDNseattle.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 16:49:11 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n360
Doc B. wrote:
>
> >Ooh, now I smell a REAL battle brewing ;-).
>
> Nah, Paul's my homey. He's a very cool cat, he'll just say, "sounds
> interesting, why not bring it to VSAC, and share it with us". -snip-
>
> Doc B.
Well, I didn't, but it's a GREAT idea!
- -Paul
=========================================================================
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 20:47:11 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n360
At 4:45 PM -0700 7/26/98, Paul Joppa wrote:
>(History is appended below, for those who don't remember.)
>
>Well, I don't see any need for a battle! :^)
Nah, of course not ;-) but it seems like output trannies inspire some of
the more interesting and passionate discussions on the list. Nice posts,
both.
Grover Gardner
groverg@postoffice.att.net
=========================================================================
From: Acrosound@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:23:25 EDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n360
In a message dated 7/26/98 7:54:04 PM, Grover wrote:
>
>Nah, of course not ;-) but it seems like output trannies inspire some of
>the more interesting and passionate discussions on the list. Nice posts,
>both.
Seems there are two areas of discussion likely to be passionately debated in
Joenet circles....tubes and output tranneys....
not surprising really....aren't these the two mainstay components of an amp?
Look at the passion in the discussion of different brands of 300B tubes.
tranneys are likely to evoke the same level of joy!!!
Mikey,
who builds tranneys
=========================================================================
From: Acrosound@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 22:37:12 EDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n360
In a message dated 7/26/98 6:52:25 PM, you wrote:
>That would be, 8k:voice coil, 60H primary inductance at
>60mA DC, capable of 500v peak AC at 20Hz along with the DC current,
><20mH leakage inductance, <330pF capacitance (all referred to the
>primary)? I would be glad to learn of such a beast.
Paul: I have not been following this thread as closely as I would like to. I
have an order to get out to Koji and if it's not on an aero-plane in a day or
so.....shew....
So....I would like to get back to some of the issues raised by yourself and
Mr. CM. If CM would be kind enough to tell us a little about himself, his
background and so forth I know, I for one, would be most interested in
learning more about him. The issues he raises are very, very important design
issues.
On the specs above Paul....they do not look too initmidating....it is, IMO,
well within the range of what I feel could be done "real world".....
but note....the current figure you state (wholly sensible in my opinion) helps
to make it a very good "doable" design. the leakage and capacity figures
could be met I am almost certain as well as the inductance figures....
but guess what....and perhaps I am wrong.... though it may be a good, sensible
(all this on first blush w/o sitting down and doing the design) and all
that....nobody would buy it....
why? Too low of DC current.....in the average consumer's mind the higher the
current rating the better (even though there is little to no correspondence
btwn diff mfgr's ratings). And the average user forgets, doesn't know, or
fails to appreciate one of the most fundamental design equations in an
airgapped SE trans. That the current is expoential in the equation for energy
factor for a core. Therefore, to maintain the same energy level in a core
which has twice the DC current would require 4 times the core area....
Most folks look at the DC current rating as a figure of merit....the higher
the better so if brand A is higher than brand B.....then A must be the better
trans....
false!!!!
but that will have to wait for another day....
Mikey
=========================================================================
From: Douglas Purl <dcp@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:26:42 -0600 (MDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n360
On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 Acrosound@aol.com wrote:
> Seems there are two areas of discussion likely to be passionately debated in
> Joenet circles....tubes and output tranneys....
>
> not surprising really....aren't these the two mainstay components of an amp?
Hey, Tranneyhead, I'll send you a copy of my new booklet: "Door Stops: A
New Life for Tube Amps." Send me the nearest cross-streets of the bridge
you are staying under.
Doug Purl
=========================================================================
From: "Lynn T. Olson" <lynno@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 14:55:06 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n361
>On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 Acrosound@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Seems there are two areas of discussion likely to be passionately debated in
>> Joenet circles....tubes and output tranneys....
>>
>> not surprising really....aren't these the two mainstay components of an amp?
>
>Hey, Tranneyhead, I'll send you a copy of my new booklet: "Door Stops: A
>New Life for Tube Amps." Send me the nearest cross-streets of the bridge
>you are staying under.
>
>Doug Purl
Hey Douglas, I'd like to remind you that Mikey, Joe Roberts, and myself are
pretty much the charter members of this group, and it was *formed* to
discuss tube amps without the rancor, personal attacks, and name-calling of
"rec.audio.high-end". I, and the rest of the group as well, would very much
appreciate it if you would knock off the personal-attack horseshit.
Since you are intentionally attacking both a charter member and the basis
of the group's charter, I can assume this posting is an adolescent troll
designed to provoke a flame-war. To be blunt, what the hell is your motive
for making this post? Do you think this is some kind of "joke", that it's
comical to wreck the one group in the entire internet devoted to triode
technology?
Lynn T. Olson
E-mail: lynno@teleport.com
Ariel Speaker Page: http://www.teleport.com/~lynno/Ariel.htm
=========================================================================
From: merrec@mail1.jpl.nasa.gov (Christopher Merren)
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 09:35:01 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n361
Paul Joppa wrote:
> (History is appended below, for those who don't remember.)
>
> Well, I don't see any need for a battle! :^) I never though it
> impossible to make a suitable transformer for a 211, just more
> difficult. Christopher's capability (-3dB at 6Hz, full power down to
> 20Hz) is however an octave short of the 3Hz/10Hz criterion mentioned
> earlier in this thread - i.e. 1/2 the inductance needed to meet that
> specification. My arithmetic may be off, but I figure this transformer
> has roughly the same impedance/inductance relation as a DS-025 - not
> bad, but to compare with a FS-030 (or whatever Mikey calls 'em now?!)
> would be unfair in that sense.
>
> Not that I'm not impressed with this spec! That's a mighty good
> transformer. But it must at least have a good deal of interleaving,
> and be fairly complex to wind. Can one buy such a transformer for say
> $150 each? That would be, 8k:voice coil, 60H primary inductance at
> 60mA DC, capable of 500v peak AC at 20Hz along with the DC current,
> <20mH leakage inductance, <330pF capacitance (all referred to the
> primary)? I would be glad to learn of such a beast. It's more my speed
> anyway; I'm not aiming for the very best. But for those who are, can
> they buy a transformer twice as good (twice the primary inductance,
> other specs unchanged) for less than $1000 per pair?
>
> -Paul
>
Yo Pauli....... first of all it has nothing to do with a good deal of complex
interleaving ...this would only increase the capacitance to render the transformer
useless.....When comparing transformers you have to take into account flux density
at lowest frequency of interset at full power....since I use 12,000 gauss as my max
limit with SE and this includes the sum of AC + DC flux densities.... Now other
transformers may achieve wider bandwidth at the expense of core distortion since
they operate there specs right under the knee of the BH curve about 18,000 gauss..
and typically spec it at 50 hz not 20 hz... this makes for ugliness in tone......
The other thing to consider is that I am not using power dB in my spec.... I am
simply using voltage ratio in dB..this is 20 times the log of the voltage
ratio...which is a tighter spec than the power dB relation...The reason I choose
this is because the nature of speakers getting close to constant current and varying
voltage with impeadance variation when loaded into triodes...this makes
delta-voltage more sensitive to the hearing in my view..
As far as trying to make me eat my own spec of 3Hz...I was refering to an RC
coupling in a voltage stage of a power amp in a previous thread.....But now you
mention it.. My best 300BSE output had a -3dB at around 1Hz and extended to 80Kz for
the other -3dB point.
CHEERS
CM
=========================================================================
From: Acrosound@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 14:20:58 EDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n361
In a message dated 7/27/98 11:52:10 AM, CM wrote:
>Yo Pauli....... first of all it has nothing to do with a good deal of complex
>interleaving ...this would only increase the capacitance to render the
transformer
>useless.....When comparing transformers you have to take into account flux
density
>at lowest frequency of interset at full power....since I use 12,000 gauss as
my
>max
If I sense a little bit of frustration or flame here.....let's keep it on the
"facts" side here. Btwn yourself and Paul and perhaps just a handful of
others....this is the crowd most able to discuss the "techie" issues of
tranneys....
I do agree CM that perhaps too much emphasis is placed on "extensive
interleaving"....and as you so aptly point out it often comes at the expense
of raising the capacitance sky high. also SE tranneys presents an additional
challenge as compared to a PP trans in the following respect. With a PP trans
we can build a mirror image coil (even on an EI folks) from both an AC and DC
point of view and have the same number of interstices btwn each half of the
primary and the secondary windings. In other words, the voltage gradients
from each half of the primary to the secondaries can be mirror imaged pairs.
If you simply take a SE primary winding and say I will wind it in 8 sections
(having 8 discrete interstices btwn primary and secondary) in a series
configuration btwn the 8 portions of primary....what you have probably
succeeded in doing is to multiply (and, worse perhaps, each one having a
different AC voltage gradient) the number of "capacitive junctions" (not a
technical term here folks, but hopefully illustrative).....
there are some ways to do some extra sectioning without suffering the penalty
above....but (sorry here) some of it I consider to be proprietary....and that
said the method I have in mind and use on some products...itself is not wholly
free of it's own drawbacks.
Generally some of the best SE designs that I have seen and heard are not chock
full of interleaving....and it is actually, IMO, moreso the capacities that
come back and haunt ya.....what I aim at in design is a relatively simple
interleave and very, very low capacity. High capacity seems to come back in
the form of poor square wave response and a trans with (many times) multiple
resonances in the first few octaves out [ast 20 Khz. I seek out a design
strategy that will allow the high frequencies to roll off *smoothly* out to
the heavens without exhibiting multiple ringings. If that means we can only
get out to 20 KHZ at -1DB....then so be it....I'll take the smooth response
and the superior AC magnetic headroom any day of the week as a worthwhile
reward....
>limit with SE and this includes the sum of AC + DC flux densities.... Now
other
>transformers may achieve wider bandwidth at the expense of core distortion
since
>they operate there specs right under the knee of the BH curve about 18,000
gauss..
>and typically spec it at 50 hz not 20 hz... this makes for ugliness in
tone......
I couldn't agree more with you. And if anything your perhaps a bit more
conservative than I am in regards to permissable flux densities... but the
general direction you aim at is the musically correct one in my opinion.
>The other thing to consider is that I am not using power dB in my spec.... I
am
>simply using voltage ratio in dB..this is 20 times the log of the voltage
>ratio...which is a tighter spec than the power dB relation...The reason I
choose
>this is because the nature of speakers getting close to constant current and
varying
>voltage with impeadance variation when loaded into triodes...this makes
>delta-voltage more sensitive to the hearing in my view..
>As far as trying to make me eat my own spec of 3Hz...I was refering to an RC
>coupling in a voltage stage of a power amp in a previous thread.....But now
you
>mention it.. My best 300BSE output had a -3dB at around 1Hz and extended to
80Kz
>for
>the other -3dB point.
I'd love to see what your up to CM.....I don't think our designs go down that
far....
out of curiosity...what are your frequency poles if you state them with a max
deviation of plus or minus 1 db (assuming a base freq of say 1KHZ)???
Part of the problem I think consumers have is that the deviation stated is
different for damn near every SE tranney mfgr out there. We use +/_ 1 DB
(and then state it deliberately conservative), Audio Note uses (gleaned from
print advertisements) "+/- 1.5 DB in most cases" (their quote), Tango uses
on their SE outputs +/- 2DB (but interestingly use a stricter deviation for
their push-pull critters) and other companies use the +/- 3DB deviation.
If all manufacturer's could get on the same page....at least then the consumer
could begin to make more meaningful comparisons...though small signal FR tests
is still an extremely limited useful tool as far as a predictor of sound
quality. Just to be a smart ass I have often thought of stating FR with a
deviation of say +/- 1.625DB.....
I always suggest to folks that they look at the FDF....frequency decade
factor....how many octaves are covered within the stated range of
deviation....so that the following FR stats cover the same number of
octaves.....
20 hz to 20 Khz (10 octaves)
30 hz to 30 khz (10 octaves)
40 hz to 40 khz (10 octaves)
and the awareness that you (CM) and Paul have been introducing about the
differences in small signal FR tests (which essentially do not tax the core
whatsoever) and the ability to deliver this same small signal response at it's
rated power (or even some significant portion thereof) is often the difference
btwn night and day.....
good job you guys are doing.....
Mikey
=========================================================================
From: Grego Sanguinetti <grego@lscpdx.latticesemi.com>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:53:21 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n361
On Sun, Jul 26, 1998 at 04:45:59PM -0700, Paul Joppa wrote:
>
> and be fairly complex to wind. Can one buy such a transformer for say
> $150 each? That would be, 8k:voice coil, 60H primary inductance at
> 60mA DC, capable of 500v peak AC at 20Hz along with the DC current,
> <20mH leakage inductance, <330pF capacitance (all referred to the
> primary)? I would be glad to learn of such a beast. It's more my speed
Yeah, pretty much. You saw them. At VSAC last year on my tranny
board. Yup those big Sowter 10K's are designed for 211's. They work
great. Don't have the tallest high end I have seen as can be expected
from the size of their core (BIG), but good enough to stay out of the
way. They will take current too. In fact, before I got my custom plate
choke wound I used one of these beasts for the plate choke of the B52,
running at 140mA.
> anyway; I'm not aiming for the very best. But for those who are, can
> they buy a transformer twice as good (twice the primary inductance,
> other specs unchanged) for less than $1000 per pair?
I seem to recall they were like 90UKL (about $150US), pretty darn
reasonable!. Don't forget to add shipping though, they are not small...
You should check the website for real price though.
http://www.sowter.co.uk
I also know that SJS has a big tranny that is supposed to be nice
and of reasonable cost. Outside of those, you get into the $$$boys...
- -grego
=========================================================================
From: "Doc B." <bottlehead@silverlink.net>
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:36:20 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n362
Do you think this is some kind of "joke", that it's
>comical to wreck the one group in the entire internet devoted to triode
>technology?
Lynn,
I don't think triodes have much to do with it. I would hazard that any troll
is done for one reason, a strong desire for attention, like a 6 year old
throwing a tantrum in a grocery store, and that it wouldn't matter if this
was the joelist or a contract bridge list.
Just shake your head and frown at his mother for letting him carry on, go
over to the beer aisle to cool off, and be thankful he's not your kid.
Speaking of showing up uninvited at a newsgroup-
Might some folks help me spread the last minute info about VSAC? It's been
suggested that members of Analogue Addicts, rec.audio.tubes, and other audio
related groups might like the info. If you belong to one of these other
lists and think it might be of interest to members of that group, I can send
you a brief blurb that you might forward if deemed suitable.
Oh yeah, we picked up a new VSAC exhibitor today-
Claus Zimmerman of MZX will be debuting the prototype of a new panel type
loudspeaker that is rated at something like 97 dB.
A few folks who have heard it say it's very impressive.
Also, Mikey has scheduled a very neat seminar on materials used in
transformer construction, which will take place in the ET/Magnequest room at
4:30 on Saturday. We will also demo an Afterglow amp vs. the new Paraglow
amp to let folks hear the differences between conventional air gapped output
topology and parafeed topology.
Thanks,
Doc B.
www.bottlehead.com
=========================================================================
From: Douglas Purl <dcp@selway.umt.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:53:04 -0600 (MDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n362
I didn't see the beginning of this now mislabelled discussion, which is
probing theoretical tradeoffs in transformer construction. Some
questions.
1. Has anyone stated baldly a transformer law akin to Hoffman's Iron Law
with loudspeakers, which expresses the relation among box size, cutoff,
and efficiency?
2. Related to the issue above, is there a consensus on the relative
contribution of physical configuration and materials to transformer
quality?
3. Can the popularity of SE with some be ascribed to advantages afforded
by the topology in the output transformer? (Not trying to open the
Pandora's box question of differing harmonic structures in SE and PP.)
4. Would apportionment of the signal into passbands serving optimized
transformers produce a better result than a single full-range amp feeding
a passive multi-speaker loudspeaker filter? (A corollary of #1. Stating
the question another way, is a full-frequency, low-distortion transformer
practicable without a bell-shaped performance curve?
I am not trying to trigger a free-for-all. Rather, I am wondering if
there are well-established answers to these questions, or at least
emergent consensuses.
Doug Purl
=========================================================================
From: Bob C <bobc@mci2000.com>
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 20:49:07 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n362
- -----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Purl <dcp@selway.umt.edu>
To: sound@deliverator.io.com <sound@deliverator.io.com>
Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
<SNIP!!!!!!!!!>
>I am wondering
>
>Doug Purl
WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob
=========================================================================
From: Paul Joppa <pdj@ISDNseattle.net>
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 22:30:35 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n362
I'll try a response to 3. and 4. below. Not much of a consensus here
though!
- -Paul Joppa
Douglas Purl wrote:
> ...snip...
> 3. Can the popularity of SE with some be ascribed to advantages afforded
> by the topology in the output transformer? (Not trying to open the
> Pandora's box question of differing harmonic structures in SE and PP.)
I've seen the claim - basically what Partridge noted, that an air gap
reduces the relative contribution of (nonlinear) core material. But it
also reduces the inductance which increases same, and by the same
amount. So I'd expect the same LF distortion from the same
transformer, gapped or ungapped, as long as it used the same core
material. This is of course not a complete answer!
> 4. Would apportionment of the signal into passbands serving optimized
> transformers produce a better result than a single full-range amp feeding
> a passive multi-speaker loudspeaker filter? (A corollary of #1. Stating
> the question another way, is a full-frequency, low-distortion transformer
> practicable without a bell-shaped performance curve?
Klipsch advocated this back in the Dark... uh, Golden... Ages. It
certainly has some attractions, you can even remove the DC from a SE
output for the highs. Has anyone actually seen or heard one of
these?!?!
=========================================================================
From: Plaato@aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 11:44:43 EDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n362
In a message dated 7/28/98 12:44:53 AM, pdj@ISDNseattle.net wrote:
<<Klipsch advocated this back in the Dark... uh, Golden... Ages. It
certainly has some attractions, you can even remove the DC from a SE
output for the highs. Has anyone actually seen or heard one of
these?!?!
>>
Look at the Lincoln Walsh Circuit in SP2 from 1939 .
=========================================================================
From: Dave Cigna <cigna@phy.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: 211 vs. 845
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 16:34:37 -0400 (EDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n363
> >Hey, Tranneyhead, I'll send you a copy of my new booklet: "Door Stops: A
> >New Life for Tube Amps." Send me the nearest cross-streets of the bridge
> >you are staying under.
> >
> >Doug Purl
>
> Since you are intentionally attacking both a charter member and the basis
> of the group's charter, I can assume this posting is an adolescent troll
> designed to provoke a flame-war. To be blunt, what the hell is your motive
> for making this post? Do you think this is some kind of "joke", that it's
> comical to wreck the one group in the entire internet devoted to triode
> technology?
I figured he's just killing time until the gay bars open so he can go down
and harass some other innocent people minding their own business.
-- Dave
=========================================================================
From: bart <bartonw@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: RE: 211 vs. 845
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:11:02 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v01.n364
Chris Merren wrote:
> My best 300BSE output had a -3dB at around 1Hz and >extended to 80Kz for
the other -3dB point.
Chris,
I am interested to know the conditions under which you achieved this
response.
What was the power output and DC plate voltage and current?
What was the load impedance and reflected primary impedance?
What was the full power achieved with this design and what bandwidth
figures were achieved at this power?
My tranformer designer also achieves very impressive measured figures and
makes fine sounding transformers. He has no trouble maintaining a pretty
extended top end but to also achieve excellent bass and handle high power
the transformers are pretty massive double C cores. His prices are very
reasonable as it is a labour of love.
Cheers,
Bart
- ----------
From: Christopher Merren[SMTP:merrec@mail1.jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, 28 July 1998 2:35
To: NO_SPAM_pdj@ISDNseattle.net_NO_SPAM
Cc: Grover Gardner; sound@deliverator.io.com
Subject: Re: 211 vs. 845
Paul Joppa wrote:
> (History is appended below, for those who don't remember.)
>
> Well, I don't see any need for a battle! :^) I never though it
> impossible to make a suitable tr