Sound Practices Mailing List Files - Volume 2
=========================================================================
From: Bjorn Kolbrek <bjornk@studpors.hit.no>
Subject: [JN] E130L
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:16:41 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n900
Hi all,
I have 4 pcs Philips E130L SQ output tubes. Looking in the data sheets, they
seem to be very linear, and have high sensitivity. They can put out about
10W SE pentode and 60W PP pentode class AB.
Has anyone tried them in anything, or know anybody who has? It would be very
interesting if someone have soem experience with them. They seem to be good
quality, and it would be interesting to use them in an amp.
Regards,
Bjørn
- -------------------------------------------------
__/\__
/ ____ \ Bjørn Kolbrek
| | || | |
| | || | | bjornk@studpors.hit.no
| | || | | http://www.geocities.com/la1zka
| | || | |
| |____| |
| /||||\ |
--------
| | | |
- -------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
From: "Farwell-Clay" <wclay@mediaone.net>
Subject: [JN] E180F, E810F sheets link
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:12:01 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n639
Hi all,
For those interested Frank has the real stuff here:
http://www.mif.pg.gda.pl/homepages/frank/sheets/30/e/E810F.pdf
http://www.mif.pg.gda.pl/homepages/frank/sheets/30/e/E180F.pdf
Walter
=========================================================================
From: "Darryl Lock" <dklock@ieee.org>
Subject: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 16:27:08 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n429
I just lashed this circuit together. Has anyone noticed the odd operating
point compared to the typical given on the datasheets? Instead of operating
at 11.5 ma or more, the E180F's are sitting at about 2ma. Anode voltage
about 65 - 70 volts instead of 140 or more.
It seems to work fine. I have the heaters on AC and need to get a couple of
220 uF caps so it is severely under filtered at the moment, but still hum is
low enough for me to try it out (although a bit annoying :-)).
One thing, the whole chassis is very microphonic, so much so that it
actually rings if you tap it. At high amp volumes in a small room it is
almost sustaining oscillation!! :-) I hope it isn't the Telefunken
E180F's that are microphonic, but it sure looks like it at the moment.
Darryl
=========================================================================
From: "Darryl Lock" <dklock@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 17:50:07 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n429
>
>
> I just lashed this circuit together. Has anyone noticed the odd operating
> point compared to the typical given on the datasheets? Instead of
> operating
> at 11.5 ma or more, the E180F's are sitting at about 2ma. Anode voltage
> about 65 - 70 volts instead of 140 or more.
>
> It seems to work fine. I have the heaters on AC and need to get
> a couple of
> 220 uF caps so it is severely under filtered at the moment, but
> still hum is
> low enough for me to try it out (although a bit annoying :-)).
>
>
Just an update. I remembered I had some Nichicon 630uF 250v caps from an
old computer switching supply, so I put them in. Hum is still loudish, so
DC heaters comes next.
What DC voltage should I put on these 6.3vac heaters?
Darryl
=========================================================================
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 09:38:39 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n430
At 5:50 PM +1000 2/2/00, Darryl Lock wrote:
> >
> >
> > I just lashed this circuit together. Has anyone noticed the odd operating
> > point compared to the typical given on the datasheets? Instead of
> > operating
> > at 11.5 ma or more, the E180F's are sitting at about 2ma. Anode voltage
> > about 65 - 70 volts instead of 140 or more.
> >
> > It seems to work fine. I have the heaters on AC and need to get
> > a couple of
> > 220 uF caps so it is severely under filtered at the moment, but
> > still hum is
> > low enough for me to try it out (although a bit annoying :-)).
> >
> >
>
>
>Just an update. I remembered I had some Nichicon 630uF 250v caps from an
>old computer switching supply, so I put them in. Hum is still loudish, so
>DC heaters comes next.
>
>What DC voltage should I put on these 6.3vac heaters?
6 volts, try 5.8 too. Yes, the tubes are prone to microphonics.
You'll eventually need to build a sub-chassis for isolation.
- -------
Grover Gardner
groverg@postoffice.att.net
=========================================================================
From: "Darryl Lock" <dklock@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:48:31 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n430
> > It seems to work fine. I have the heaters on AC and need to get
> > a couple of
> > 220 uF caps so it is severely under filtered at the moment, but
> > still hum is
> > low enough for me to try it out (although a bit annoying :-)).
> >
> >
>
>
> Just an update. I remembered I had some Nichicon 630uF 250v caps from an
> old computer switching supply, so I put them in. Hum is still loudish, so
> DC heaters comes next.
>
> What DC voltage should I put on these 6.3vac heaters?
>
> Darryl
>
I found a 15 vac tranny and built the DC power supply circuit that comes
with the E180F RIAA preamp schematic. It seems he runs them on a little
above 6 volts DC.
There is no hum left at all now and the sound is gorgeous.
Going to add a line stage and I have myself a nice little all valve
preamp!!! Might use some of those EF184's for the line stage... hmmm,
don't need much gain, so I guess in triode mode.
Darryl
Darryl
=========================================================================
From: tube@jump.net
Subject: Re: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 11:55:44 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n431
Darryl Lock wrote:
[Snip]
> One thing, the whole chassis is very microphonic, so much so that it
> actually rings if you tap it. At high amp volumes in a small room it is
> almost sustaining oscillation!! :-) I hope it isn't the Telefunken
> E180F's that are microphonic, but it sure looks like it at the moment.
>
> Darryl
The 7737/E186f is supposed to be a "non-microphonic" 6688/E180f. Don't
know if they would actually be better or not. They are, naturally, much
more scarce and expensive.
Phil
=========================================================================
From: "P. de R. L." <triode@bow-tie.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:36:42 -0000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n431
I have run E180Fs as triodes. Later I obtained the factory triode curves;
my experience matched these almost exactly.
Characteristics: (as triode):- Va 160V, Vg -1.2V Ia 16.5mA; gm 18.5mA/V ra
2.7k, mu 50.
Not bad for about three quid!
Paul
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Darryl Lock <dklock@ieee.org>
To: JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 6:27 AM
Subject: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
>
>
> I just lashed this circuit together. Has anyone noticed the odd operating
> point compared to the typical given on the datasheets? Instead of
operating
> at 11.5 ma or more, the E180F's are sitting at about 2ma. Anode voltage
> about 65 - 70 volts instead of 140 or more.
>
> It seems to work fine. I have the heaters on AC and need to get a couple
of
> 220 uF caps so it is severely under filtered at the moment, but still hum
is
> low enough for me to try it out (although a bit annoying :-)).
>
>
> One thing, the whole chassis is very microphonic, so much so that it
> actually rings if you tap it. At high amp volumes in a small room it is
> almost sustaining oscillation!! :-) I hope it isn't the Telefunken
> E180F's that are microphonic, but it sure looks like it at the moment.
>
>
> Darryl
>
>
=========================================================================
From: "P. de R. L." <triode@bow-tie.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:39:53 -0000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n431
I have about six or eight of these. mostly Mullards, a Valvo and a
telefunken. all bought s/h at 50p each.
Some are microphonic, some are not. try more current.
Paul
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <tube@jump.net>
To: Darryl Lock <dklock@ieee.org>
Cc: JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
> Darryl Lock wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>
> > One thing, the whole chassis is very microphonic, so much so that it
> > actually rings if you tap it. At high amp volumes in a small room it is
> > almost sustaining oscillation!! :-) I hope it isn't the Telefunken
> > E180F's that are microphonic, but it sure looks like it at the moment.
> >
> > Darryl
>
> The 7737/E186f is supposed to be a "non-microphonic" 6688/E180f. Don't
> know if they would actually be better or not. They are, naturally, much
> more scarce and expensive.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
=========================================================================
From: "P. de R. L." <triode@bow-tie.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 23:51:28 -0000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n431
Not something I said, I hope?
Paul
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Darryl Lock <dklock@ieee.org>
To: JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>; Tom Cook <aopen1@netzero.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 10:37 PM
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
>
>
>
> >
> > Stop wasting our bandwidth with your one liners asshole.
> >
>
>
> I think you are worth ignoring!
>
>
> Darryl
>
>
>
> > JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 4:16 PM
> > Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I have about six or eight of these. mostly Mullards, a Valvo and a
> > > > telefunken. all bought s/h at 50p each.
> > > >
> > > > Some are microphonic, some are not.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mine are all about the same
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > try more current.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ah yes, will do thanks.
> > >
> > > Darryl
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <tube@jump.net>
> > > > To: Darryl Lock <dklock@ieee.org>
> > > > Cc: JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 5:55 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Darryl Lock wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [Snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > > One thing, the whole chassis is very microphonic, so much
> > so that it
> > > > > > actually rings if you tap it. At high amp volumes in a small
> > > > room it is
> > > > > > almost sustaining oscillation!! :-) I hope it isn't the
> > Telefunken
> > > > > > E180F's that are microphonic, but it sure looks like it at the
> > moment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Darryl
> > > > >
> > > > > The 7737/E186f is supposed to be a "non-microphonic"
> > 6688/E180f. Don't
> > > > > know if they would actually be better or not. They are, naturally,
> > much
> > > > > more scarce and expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> > Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> > http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
> >
>
=========================================================================
From: "P. de R. L." <triode@bow-tie.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 00:02:56 -0000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n431
Darryl,
another thought.
re-reading your message reminded me of a similar experience with wht I call
"glassy" microphony.
someone whose opinion I respect, suggested RF or UHF oscillation to be the
cause and suggested as a first step, increasing the value of the
grid-stoppers. Subsequent action would include finding the "dominant pole"
and proceeding to slug it.
However I seem to recall someone saying that low-current operation can be a
cause in itself.
I also had the same trouble whilst experimenting with 6CW4 nuvistors.
Paul
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Darryl Lock <dklock@ieee.org>
To: P. de R. L. <triode@bow-tie.org.uk>; <tube@jump.net>
Cc: JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 9:16 PM
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
>
>
> >
> > I have about six or eight of these. mostly Mullards, a Valvo and a
> > telefunken. all bought s/h at 50p each.
> >
> > Some are microphonic, some are not.
>
>
>
> Mine are all about the same
>
>
>
> > try more current.
> >
>
> ah yes, will do thanks.
>
> Darryl
>
>
>
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <tube@jump.net>
> > To: Darryl Lock <dklock@ieee.org>
> > Cc: JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 5:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
> >
> >
> > > Darryl Lock wrote:
> > >
> > > [Snip]
> > >
> > > > One thing, the whole chassis is very microphonic, so much so that it
> > > > actually rings if you tap it. At high amp volumes in a small
> > room it is
> > > > almost sustaining oscillation!! :-) I hope it isn't the
Telefunken
> > > > E180F's that are microphonic, but it sure looks like it at the
moment.
> > > >
> > > > Darryl
> > >
> > > The 7737/E186f is supposed to be a "non-microphonic" 6688/E180f. Don't
> > > know if they would actually be better or not. They are, naturally,
much
> > > more scarce and expensive.
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
=========================================================================
From: "Darryl Lock" <dklock@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 07:16:13 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n431
>
> I have about six or eight of these. mostly Mullards, a Valvo and a
> telefunken. all bought s/h at 50p each.
>
> Some are microphonic, some are not.
Mine are all about the same
> try more current.
>
ah yes, will do thanks.
Darryl
> Paul
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <tube@jump.net>
> To: Darryl Lock <dklock@ieee.org>
> Cc: JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
>
>
> > Darryl Lock wrote:
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > > One thing, the whole chassis is very microphonic, so much so that it
> > > actually rings if you tap it. At high amp volumes in a small
> room it is
> > > almost sustaining oscillation!! :-) I hope it isn't the Telefunken
> > > E180F's that are microphonic, but it sure looks like it at the moment.
> > >
> > > Darryl
> >
> > The 7737/E186f is supposed to be a "non-microphonic" 6688/E180f. Don't
> > know if they would actually be better or not. They are, naturally, much
> > more scarce and expensive.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >
>
=========================================================================
From: "Darryl Lock" <dklock@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:37:16 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n431
>
> Stop wasting our bandwidth with your one liners asshole.
>
I think you are worth ignoring!
Darryl
> JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 4:16 PM
> Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I have about six or eight of these. mostly Mullards, a Valvo and a
> > > telefunken. all bought s/h at 50p each.
> > >
> > > Some are microphonic, some are not.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mine are all about the same
> >
> >
> >
> > > try more current.
> > >
> >
> > ah yes, will do thanks.
> >
> > Darryl
> >
> >
> >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <tube@jump.net>
> > > To: Darryl Lock <dklock@ieee.org>
> > > Cc: JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 5:55 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
> > >
> > >
> > > > Darryl Lock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [Snip]
> > > >
> > > > > One thing, the whole chassis is very microphonic, so much
> so that it
> > > > > actually rings if you tap it. At high amp volumes in a small
> > > room it is
> > > > > almost sustaining oscillation!! :-) I hope it isn't the
> Telefunken
> > > > > E180F's that are microphonic, but it sure looks like it at the
> moment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Darryl
> > > >
> > > > The 7737/E186f is supposed to be a "non-microphonic"
> 6688/E180f. Don't
> > > > know if they would actually be better or not. They are, naturally,
> much
> > > > more scarce and expensive.
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________
> NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
>
=========================================================================
From: "Darryl Lock" <dklock@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:05:14 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n431
>
> Not something I said, I hope?
>
> Paul
>
Not at all. I appreciate your help.
No, this idiot Tom Cook has decided to be obnoxious for some strange reason.
I haven't looked up the rules of this list, however, I don't see how I could
have broken them. Why he is being nasty and insulting, I am not sure.
Maybe he is the one breaking the rules!
Darryl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Darryl Lock <dklock@ieee.org>
> To: JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>; Tom Cook <aopen1@netzero.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 10:37 PM
> Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Stop wasting our bandwidth with your one liners asshole.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I think you are worth ignoring!
> >
> >
> > Darryl
> >
> >
> >
> > > JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 4:16 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have about six or eight of these. mostly Mullards, a
> Valvo and a
> > > > > telefunken. all bought s/h at 50p each.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some are microphonic, some are not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mine are all about the same
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > try more current.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ah yes, will do thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Darryl
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: <tube@jump.net>
> > > > > To: Darryl Lock <dklock@ieee.org>
> > > > > Cc: JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 5:55 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Darryl Lock wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > One thing, the whole chassis is very microphonic, so much
> > > so that it
> > > > > > > actually rings if you tap it. At high amp volumes in a small
> > > > > room it is
> > > > > > > almost sustaining oscillation!! :-) I hope it isn't the
> > > Telefunken
> > > > > > > E180F's that are microphonic, but it sure looks like it at the
> > > moment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Darryl
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The 7737/E186f is supposed to be a "non-microphonic"
> > > 6688/E180f. Don't
> > > > > > know if they would actually be better or not. They are,
> naturally,
> > > much
> > > > > > more scarce and expensive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phil
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________
> > > NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> > > Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> > > http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
> > >
> >
>
=========================================================================
From: "Darryl Lock" <dklock@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:07:18 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n431
>
> Darryl,
>
> another thought.
>
> re-reading your message reminded me of a similar experience with
> wht I call
> "glassy" microphony.
>
> someone whose opinion I respect, suggested RF or UHF oscillation to be the
> cause and suggested as a first step, increasing the value of the
> grid-stoppers.
> Subsequent action would include finding the
> "dominant pole"
> and proceeding to slug it.
>
> However I seem to recall someone saying that low-current
> operation can be a
> cause in itself.
My bet is the low current. I am tidying it all up and adding some EF184's
as buffers today, so we'll see how it goes.
This circuit does not like operating into long leads, it can even start to
slow motorboat. That's why I am adding the buffers.
Darryl
=========================================================================
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 22:31:43 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n432
At 8:37 AM +1000 2/3/00, Darryl Lock wrote:
> >
> > Stop wasting our bandwidth with your one liners asshole.
> >
>
>
>I think you are worth ignoring!
>
>
>Darryl
Someone wrote you this off-list, Darryl? I've got a few one-liners for him...
- -------
Grover Gardner
groverg@postoffice.att.net
=========================================================================
From: "Darryl Lock" <dklock@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 13:37:08 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n432
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grover Gardner [mailto:groverg@postoffice.att.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 1:32 PM
> To: Darryl Lock; JoeNet; Tom Cook
> Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
>
>
> At 8:37 AM +1000 2/3/00, Darryl Lock wrote:
> > >
> > > Stop wasting our bandwidth with your one liners asshole.
> > >
> >
> >
> >I think you are worth ignoring!
> >
> >
> >Darryl
>
> Someone wrote you this off-list, Darryl? I've got a few
> one-liners for him...
>
>
> -------
Yes, he has sent three so far... very annoying... and I have no idea why?
Darryl
> Grover Gardner
> groverg@postoffice.att.net
>
=========================================================================
From: "P. de R. L." <triode@bow-tie.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 17:12:16 -0000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n432
I llok forward to hearing about this; sounds interesting.
Paul
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Darryl Lock <dklock@ieee.org>
To: P. de R. L. <triode@bow-tie.org.uk>; <tube@jump.net>
Cc: JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 1:07 AM
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
>
>
> >
> > Darryl,
> >
> > another thought.
> >
> > re-reading your message reminded me of a similar experience with
> > wht I call
> > "glassy" microphony.
> >
> > someone whose opinion I respect, suggested RF or UHF oscillation to be
the
> > cause and suggested as a first step, increasing the value of the
> > grid-stoppers.
> > Subsequent action would include finding the
> > "dominant pole"
> > and proceeding to slug it.
> >
> > However I seem to recall someone saying that low-current
> > operation can be a
> > cause in itself.
>
>
> My bet is the low current. I am tidying it all up and adding some EF184's
> as buffers today, so we'll see how it goes.
>
> This circuit does not like operating into long leads, it can even start to
> slow motorboat. That's why I am adding the buffers.
>
> Darryl
>
>
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 23:54:56 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n433
Never feed "E" tubes below 6 V, it will shorten their life !
A little below 6.3 V seems best, say 6.2 V
Learned this from the emission expert (now retired and active in the
Philips museum) at Mullard tubes
Guido
>>What DC voltage should I put on these 6.3vac heaters?
>
>6 volts, try 5.8 too. Yes, the tubes are prone to microphonics.
>You'll eventually need to build a sub-chassis for isolation.
>
>
>-------
>Grover Gardner
>groverg@postoffice.att.net
>
>
=========================================================================
From: "Darryl Lock" <dklock@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 08:26:50 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n433
>
> I llok forward to hearing about this; sounds interesting.
>
> Paul
Well I have cured it's instability. Despite building the published circuit
exactly, I have had to add some 5k grid stoppers. It is stable now, even
with long leads.
The EF184 buffers also work. I put them in triode mode with a 10k anode
resistor, and a 150 ohm cathode bias resistor (no bypassing). They are
running at about 11 ma at 130 volt. Will measure the gain later, but it is
heaps :-). More than enough to add some tone controls if I want.
The E180F's are still microphonic, so I'll try a little more operating
current today (hopefully).
BTW: I ran all these valves off DC heaters (mainly because the spare
transformer I use to get the DC could handle it easily)
Darryl
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Darryl Lock <dklock@ieee.org>
> To: P. de R. L. <triode@bow-tie.org.uk>; <tube@jump.net>
> Cc: JoeNet <sound@lists.io.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 1:07 AM
> Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Darryl,
> > >
> > > another thought.
> > >
> > > re-reading your message reminded me of a similar experience with
> > > wht I call
> > > "glassy" microphony.
> > >
> > > someone whose opinion I respect, suggested RF or UHF oscillation to be
> the
> > > cause and suggested as a first step, increasing the value of the
> > > grid-stoppers.
> > > Subsequent action would include finding the
> > > "dominant pole"
> > > and proceeding to slug it.
> > >
> > > However I seem to recall someone saying that low-current
> > > operation can be a
> > > cause in itself.
> >
> >
> > My bet is the low current. I am tidying it all up and adding
> some EF184's
> > as buffers today, so we'll see how it goes.
> >
> > This circuit does not like operating into long leads, it can
> even start to
> > slow motorboat. That's why I am adding the buffers.
> >
> > Darryl
> >
> >
>
=========================================================================
From: "T. Loesch" <ezee_e@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 10:20:57 GMT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n433
Hi there,
>Well I have cured it's instability. Despite building the published circuit
>exactly, I have had to add some 5k grid stoppers. It is stable now, even
>with long leads.
Well, I personally have noted that almost any high GM Valve (Triode or
Penthode needs some form of Grid stopping. I personally prefer to use
Ferrite beads directly on the socket pins.
Later Thorsten
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
=========================================================================
From: "Darryl Lock" <dklock@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: [JN] E180F RIAA preamp
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 22:01:44 +1000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n433
>
> Hi there,
>
> >Well I have cured it's instability. Despite building the
> published circuit
> >exactly, I have had to add some 5k grid stoppers. It is
> stable now, even
> >with long leads.
>
> Well, I personally have noted that almost any high GM Valve (Triode or
> Penthode needs some form of Grid stopping. I personally prefer to use
> Ferrite beads directly on the socket pins.
>
Yeah, I think I'll buy some after this! :-)
Darryl
=========================================================================
From: "P. de R. L." <triode@bow-tie.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [JN] E182CC/7119 (wasGone full circle or just....gone)
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:51:40 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n507
If I have to be honest, I suppose I would say "dreadful" relative to the
valve's superb specification.
And there are worse expressions in English (excluding the rude ones) . For
example I would not say "appalling" or "execrable".
It was designed for use (and abuse) in computers; very different from our
applications. I think.
I have tried E182CC (Mullard) and 7119 (Amperex) (I still have the damn'
things) in my push-pull 813 (triode-strapped) amplifer. I have tried them
also as mu-followers, in SRPP and also as cathode followers. In every case
there is that distinctive strident sound. Replace the E182CC/.7119 in any
of these functions with a 6SN7 (very inferior on paper) or a 5687 and
instantly back comes the smoothness; 5687 as a cathode follower is
especially good although you really do have to cane it a bit for best
results (i.e. run plenty of current).
Recently, I have been developing another Class A amplifier. The novel
feature of this one is the beam tetrode (6146 or 12E1) underneath the output
stage; the amplifier is direct coupled. At one point seeking an increase in
gain I plugged in a 7119. With this amplifier it was a bit better, but
still a bit edgy. Replacing it with either 6350 or 6463 was a definite
improvement - and both these are not as good on paper. These two were
designed for computers too, I believe.
Presently, in the 813 amplifier, I am using WE396A (=2C51) on a 2SK170 sink
DC coupled to a 6BX7 which sits on an EL822 sink and drives the 813s very
nicely. In the constant-current amp, I am using E288CC(8223) to drive the
6528 output stage (which sits on a 12E1 sink).
I ran the 7119/E182CC at various voltages and currents and was never happy
with it.
However I am glad you are happy with yours! Chacun a son gout!
Paul
> Hi Paul, you wrote:
> >
> > Stay with the 5687s (unless you can find some 8223s. 7119s/E182CCs look
> > fine on paper but sound dreadful
> >
> >
> What a ,-,-..comment!.,- ....Please elaborate for us how you have
> come to this rather,-uh.. cleancut conclusion.....Would you elaborate on,-
>
> -sound characteristics,-
>
> (Dreadful is pretty bad, no?. In fact, with my limited English vocabulary,
> I cannot imagine anything more worce than,-.. dreadful. It's also
> interesting
> that your findings are exactly the opposit of mine....
>
> (Thinking broader on it, I've tried numerous different tubes through the
> years
> in various applications..N o n e of them giving dreadful results, infact,
a
> l l of them
> gave various shades of good in some ways..But then I must admit to even
> enjoy
> metal-enveloped 6V6's in certain applications..Now it's said ,-better go
> and buy
> those Q-tips'....)
>
> -in what application,-
>
> (Tell us about your experience with this tube. In what amp-type,-setup
etc.
> did you test it out? I must say I've used this one in both common cathode,
> cascode, and cathodefollower-amps with IMO great results.)
>
> -what working points.
>
> (I am very interested in the working point giving *dreadful* sound.Why?
> Well, sometimes I'm involved in making these guitar and bass-amps were
> 'voicing' of the different pre's is sort of ..."the icing of the cake".
> (Hope I got that correct.) So I'm always outlooking for new circuits and
> tubes that can add personality to the sound...A *dreadful* personality
> would
> surely go right home with the black-metal guitarists..
>
> (Yes, coming to think of it, I even use the E182CC in the balanced/PP
> output stage in the preamp I use with my bass-guitar rig...
> I really tried some tricks to get a "coloured" sound here,-like using a
> surplus line-driver x-former from the 50'ies ,-(From a surplus, NOS line
> amplifier
> that was spare part for some bomber-airplane communication system...),-
> And the most dirt simple,integral phase splitter you could imagine....But
> sound is nonetheless good.)
>
> So I'm eager to learn from your experiences!
>
> Best regards
> Torbjoern, Norway
>
>
=========================================================================
From: Allen Wright <AllenVSE@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: [JN] E182CC/7119 (wasGone full circle or just....gone)
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 18:54:08 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n508
Paul wrote:
>>>I have tried E182CC (Mullard) and 7119 (Amperex)...In every
case there is that distinctive strident sound<<<
and:
>>>or a 5687 and instantly back comes the smoothness<<<
I can't see that high transconductance could be the source of the
experienced "harshness" of the 7119, as the 5687 is no slouch in the gM
business - and is very different from the 6SN7 which is a low gM tube in
comparison.
Lynn Olsen uses 7119's as drivers in his P-P 300B amp, and I have been told
that John Camille considers them sonically the best of that family. I have
used them with good results and intend using them again, so while I don't
know what is going on for you Paul, I'd happily swop you some good NOS
5687's for some good NOS E182CC's...
Allen (VSE)
=========================================================================
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Torbj=F8rn_Lien?=" <mdrivekl@online.no>
Subject: Re: [JN] E182CC/7119 (wasGone full circle or just....gone)
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:56:02 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n508
Hello.
>
> If I have to be honest, I suppose I would say "dreadful" relative to the
> valve's superb specification.
>
Ok..[snip]
>
> I have tried E182CC (Mullard) and 7119 (Amperex) (I still have the damn'
> things) in my push-pull 813 (triode-strapped) amplifer. I have tried
them
> also as mu-followers, in SRPP and also as cathode followers. In every
case
> there is that distinctive strident sound.
>
Hm,-I think I can picture what you mean. It might be a sound characteristic
that is somewhat common to high gm-types, more than the actual tubetype
IMO.
This characteristic might disappear with proper realisation of the circuit.
But again
not always,-.( I used to dislike the E88CC much the same way, but I'm not
very sure
if it's the actual tube or type that is to blame. (I used this one in a
hybrid poweramp-with
mosfets in the outputstage.-a'la the moscode amps from NYAL. Sound was ok
I guess,-but somehow without the "magic" some of my other amps posess'.
After
trying lot of tweaks I gave the amps up and blamed the tubes. But maybe
wrong.
Cause for a long time I used the same tubes in a MC-stage,-here with very
good
results. Go figure. Maybe voltage levels or swing,-
>
> Replace the E182CC/.7119 in any of these functions with a 6SN7
> (very inferior on paper)
>
IMO, the 6SN7 is good,-also on paper..But it's a lower gm-type,- relative
to the modern types atleast,-
>
>or a 5687 and instantly back comes the smoothness; 5687 as a cathode
>follower is especially good although you really do have to cane it a bit
for
>best results (i.e. run plenty of current).
>
[snip]
My experience with high gm types is that they require more care in setup
than the oldies.And that they usually are not interchangeable. On one setup
with the E182CC i noticed it was slightly hard and microphonic (due to
amongst others too much power gain.) It was solved with proper
decoupling of the filament, a higher load,-and a gridstopper. You might
try that.
Try to add a series output resistor directly at anode aswell (220ohm). This
is
not often done in tube amps, but might just ease up the sound. And if it
does,
it might be a sign of improved hf-stability,- then probably the load or
wiring or
both is to blame....
Regards
Torbjoern, Norway
=========================================================================
From: Buschmann <bmann@nexgo.de>
Subject: [JN] e182cc
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:00:36 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n896
hi everybody,
any ideas for a line-stage with e182cc? got some telefunkens, which need
some heating...
thanks
jörg
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: Re: [JN] e182cc
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:32:03 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n896
Hi
I use 182 transformer coupled (1:1) at about 200V and 15 mA
Thorsten has SRPP
Bothe owners say they sound fine..............
Why not start easy with common cathode and do some experiments ?
Guido
At 12:00 31-5-01 -0700, Buschmann wrote:
>hi everybody,
>
>any ideas for a line-stage with e182cc? got some telefunkens, which need
>some heating...
>
>thanks
>
>jörg
=========================================================================
From: "P de R. Leclercq" <triode@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:19:22 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n896
I would say give them away; every attempt I have made to use these they have
sounded terrible.
I do not have FFT equipment but I would guess from their sound that they
produce copious amounts of odd-order distortion
Best wishes
Paul Leclercq
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-sound@lists.io.com [mailto:owner-sound@lists.io.com]On
Behalf Of Buschmann
Sent: 31 May 2001 12:01
To: sound@lists.io.com
Subject: [JN] e182cc
hi everybody,
any ideas for a line-stage with e182cc? got some telefunkens, which need
some heating...
thanks
jörg
=========================================================================
From: "Le Cleac'h Jean-Michel" <lecleach@paris.ensmp.fr>
Subject: Re: [JN] e182cc
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:53:33 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n896
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "P de R. Leclercq" <triode@freenetname.co.uk>
To: "Buschmann" <bmann@nexgo.de>; <sound@lists.io.com>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 9:19 AM
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
> I would say give them away; every attempt I have made to use these they
have
> sounded terrible.
>
> I do not have FFT equipment but I would guess from their sound that they
> produce copious amounts of odd-order distortion
Hello,
They do not have such a high H3 level and H2 is far above H3.
E182CC is one of the more linear European tubes (Philips....) ever built, it
possess a very low plate resistance and its plates can deliver few watts
(but count for less than 1 watt in audio).
But: it is a frame grid tube and specifically a double one as there is 2
half-tubes.
It's use is a bit edgy and that's why it is often disconsidered. You can
simply not use it as you should use an E82CC by example.
Most problem encountered with the E182CC is due to the frame grid (HF
sensitivity) and to the double structure.
The best use for them in audio is in push pull stage, by example in a
preamplifier or in a small power amplifier (headphone amplifier) between an
input transformer and an output transformer.
Heater supply should be done in DC and the best is to use batteries.
In such configuration it is a very good sounding tube.
Best regards,
Jean-Michel Le Cleac'h, Paris, France
=========================================================================
From: "Cameron Brook" <cambrook@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: [JN] e182cc
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:37:52 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n896
What about something like Lynn Olson's Raven preamp?
http://www.aloha-audio.com/triode1.html
=========================================================================
From: "P de R. Leclercq" <triode@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:55:08 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n897
Thank you Jean.
Pehaps there are many more higher-order harmonics in the spectrum?
Certainly, other computer types sound better to me than E182CC: 5687 or 6463
for example. Despite its questionable linearity, I think that E288CC is the
best of all - although I build only differential circuits.
I suppose it is worth observing that differentials double odd order
distortion and halve even order.
Regards
Paul
Hello,
They do not have such a high H3 level and H2 is far above H3.
E182CC is one of the more linear European tubes (Philips....) ever built, it
possess a very low plate resistance and its plates can deliver few watts
(but count for less than 1 watt in audio).
But: it is a frame grid tube and specifically a double one as there is 2
half-tubes.
It's use is a bit edgy and that's why it is often disconsidered. You can
simply not use it as you should use an E82CC by example.
Most problem encountered with the E182CC is due to the frame grid (HF
sensitivity) and to the double structure.
The best use for them in audio is in push pull stage, by example in a
preamplifier or in a small power amplifier (headphone amplifier) between an
input transformer and an output transformer.
Heater supply should be done in DC and the best is to use batteries.
In such configuration it is a very good sounding tube.
Best regards,
Jean-Michel Le Cleac'h, Paris, France
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 12:34:09 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n897
At 00:19 1-6-01 -0700, P de R. Leclercq wrote:
>I would say give them away;
?
>every attempt I have made to use these they have
>sounded terrible.
Oh ? What did you build ?
>I do not have FFT equipment but I would guess from their sound that they
>produce copious amounts of odd-order distortion
Depends how you use them. They like high currents
Their curves look very fine (straight) , especially if you consider they
are intenden for computer use.......
Enjoy
Guido
>Best wishes
>
>Paul Leclercq
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-sound@lists.io.com [mailto:owner-sound@lists.io.com]On
>Behalf Of Buschmann
>Sent: 31 May 2001 12:01
>To: sound@lists.io.com
>Subject: [JN] e182cc
>
>
>hi everybody,
>
>any ideas for a line-stage with e182cc? got some telefunkens, which need
>some heating...
>
>thanks
>
>jörg
>
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 12:38:35 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n897
At 11:55 1-6-01 -0700, P de R. Leclercq wrote:
>Thank you Jean.
>
>Pehaps there are many more higher-order harmonics in the spectrum?
Given the linear curves I would be surprised
>Certainly, other computer types sound better to me than E182CC: 5687 or 6463
>for example. Despite its questionable linearity, I think that E288CC is the
>best of all - although I build only differential circuits.
288 is inded non-linear compared to 182 (and needs even more current to get
the thing running smoothly
>I suppose it is worth observing that differentials double odd order
>distortion and halve even order.
Highly depends on the balance, you can get what you want
182 tends to oscilate quiete easily, makes sound rough, so add grid stoppers
Have fun
Guido
>Regards
>
>Paul
>
>Hello,
>
>They do not have such a high H3 level and H2 is far above H3.
>E182CC is one of the more linear European tubes (Philips....) ever built, it
>possess a very low plate resistance and its plates can deliver few watts
>(but count for less than 1 watt in audio).
>
>But: it is a frame grid tube and specifically a double one as there is 2
>half-tubes.
>It's use is a bit edgy and that's why it is often disconsidered. You can
>simply not use it as you should use an E82CC by example.
>
>Most problem encountered with the E182CC is due to the frame grid (HF
>sensitivity) and to the double structure.
>
>The best use for them in audio is in push pull stage, by example in a
>preamplifier or in a small power amplifier (headphone amplifier) between an
>input transformer and an output transformer.
>Heater supply should be done in DC and the best is to use batteries.
>
>In such configuration it is a very good sounding tube.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jean-Michel Le Cleac'h, Paris, France
>
>
>
>
>
=========================================================================
From: Remco Stoutjesdijk <remco@ultranalog.com>
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 15:36:53 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n897
>Their curves look very fine (straight) , especially if you consider they
>are intenden for computer use.......
Eh, hold it a minute, they were meant for ANALOG computers. Just like the 5687. Mostly in opamp circ
uits where they are (were) the differential input pair.
That makes a little more sense, huh?
BTW for a REALLY linear tube, check out the curves of the PC86. That's just scary!!!
Regards,
Remco
- --
http://www.ultranalog.com
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 17:55:31 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n897
At 15:36 2-6-01 +0200, Remco Stoutjesdijk wrote:
>
>>Their curves look very fine (straight) , especially if you consider they
>>are intenden for computer use.......
>
>Eh, hold it a minute, they were meant for ANALOG computers.
Oh realy ? Now I get it !
Just like the
>5687. Mostly in opamp circuits where they are (were) the differential input
>pair.
OK. BTW, first opamp was made of 2 pcs ECC83
>That makes a little more sense, huh?
Yes, didn't know that before (but you did)
>BTW for a REALLY linear tube, check out the curves of the PC86. That's just
>scary!!!
Yes, I know that tube as well, use EC86 for a while
regards
=
Guido
>Regards,
>
>Remco
>--
>http://www.ultranalog.com
=========================================================================
From: "P de R. Leclercq" <triode@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 21:24:18 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n897
If you want linearity then look no further than 6J5/6SN7.
Most of the frame grid pentodes make very linear triodes
(E282F/E180F/E810F/E280F/D3A/E55L) but generally you pay for this with high
Ca-g (except D3A) and possible higher distortion.
Interestingly, 813, definitely not a frame grid valve is very linear as a
triode.
Paul
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-sound@lists.io.com [mailto:owner-sound@lists.io.com]On
Behalf Of Remco Stoutjesdijk
Sent: 02 June 2001 06:37
To: sound@lists.io.com
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
>Their curves look very fine (straight) , especially if you consider they
>are intenden for computer use.......
Eh, hold it a minute, they were meant for ANALOG computers. Just like the
5687. Mostly in opamp circuits where they are (were) the differential input
pair.
That makes a little more sense, huh?
BTW for a REALLY linear tube, check out the curves of the PC86. That's just
scary!!!
Regards,
Remco
- --
http://www.ultranalog.com
=========================================================================
From: "P de R. Leclercq" <triode@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 21:27:00 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n897
I have used the valve as a straightforward driver, in SRPP as a mu-follower
and as a cathode follower; all useless - nasty and strident. I repeat,
6350, 6463, 5687 and E288CC do not sound this way; sadly, with all they have
to offer none is as good as a decent 6SN7 however.
Remco referred to linearity; the little 6J4 is pretty good and awfully
cheap!
Paul
- -----Original Message-----
From: evaguido [mailto:EvaGuido@iaehv.nl]
Sent: 02 June 2001 03:34
To: P de R. Leclercq; Buschmann; sound@lists.io.com
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
At 00:19 1-6-01 -0700, P de R. Leclercq wrote:
>I would say give them away;
?
>every attempt I have made to use these they have
>sounded terrible.
Oh ? What did you build ?
>I do not have FFT equipment but I would guess from their sound that they
>produce copious amounts of odd-order distortion
Depends how you use them. They like high currents
Their curves look very fine (straight) , especially if you consider they
are intenden for computer use.......
Enjoy
Guido
>Best wishes
>
>Paul Leclercq
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-sound@lists.io.com [mailto:owner-sound@lists.io.com]On
>Behalf Of Buschmann
>Sent: 31 May 2001 12:01
>To: sound@lists.io.com
>Subject: [JN] e182cc
>
>
>hi everybody,
>
>any ideas for a line-stage with e182cc? got some telefunkens, which need
>some heating...
>
>thanks
>
>jörg
>
=========================================================================
From: j45yip@netscape.net (Johari Yip)
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 20:49:32 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n898
hi paul,
"P de R. Leclercq" <triode@freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I have used the valve as a straightforward driver, in SRPP as a mu-follower
> and as a cathode follower; all useless - nasty and strident. I repeat,
> 6350, 6463, 5687 and E288CC do not sound this way; sadly, with all they have
> to offer none is as good as a decent 6SN7 however.
i still prefer the 5687 sound over the 6sn7 though...
>
> Remco referred to linearity; the little 6J4 is pretty good and awfully
> cheap!
yes, i find the 6j4 sounded very good with 45...can be too microphonic though....i have plan to work
on a 6j4 wot linestage...i think 15k on the primary should do it.....comments?
>
> Paul
- --
Johari Yip
===================
j45yip@netscape.net
===================
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
=========================================================================
From: "P de R. Leclercq" <triode@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 01:58:06 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n898
6J4 in a linestage? Hm, it has a lot of mu for that application I would
have thought - perhaps I am still too conventional.
I have just built a linestage: S/E in and balanced out. It uses a pair of
6SN7GTBs, a pair of 6BZ7s as cathode followers and four 6096s as pentode
current sinks for the cathode followers. All DC and a switched attenuator;
it sounds rather good.
I used 6J4 in a line-level input power amp; I really wanted to use the
fascinating GEC A1714 planar triode, but having invested in some, I was
depressed by their variability and also by their appalling microphony (I
admit now that this could have been oscillation). Anyway, the 6J4 was as
quiet as the grave. I have four of them - two Sylvania 6J4WA and a pair of
Mullards. I think the Mullards are better.
Best of luck,
Paul Leclercq
- -----Original Message-----
From: Johari Yip [mailto:j45yip@netscape.net]
Sent: 02 June 2001 17:50
To: triode@freenetname.co.uk
Cc: sound@lists.io.com
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
hi paul,
"P de R. Leclercq" <triode@freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I have used the valve as a straightforward driver, in SRPP as a
mu-follower
> and as a cathode follower; all useless - nasty and strident. I repeat,
> 6350, 6463, 5687 and E288CC do not sound this way; sadly, with all they
have
> to offer none is as good as a decent 6SN7 however.
i still prefer the 5687 sound over the 6sn7 though...
>
> Remco referred to linearity; the little 6J4 is pretty good and awfully
> cheap!
yes, i find the 6j4 sounded very good with 45...can be too microphonic
though....i have plan to work on a 6j4 wot linestage...i think 15k on the
primary should do it.....comments?
>
> Paul
- --
Johari Yip
===================
j45yip@netscape.net
===================
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com/
=========================================================================
From: "P de R. Leclercq" <triode@freenetname.co.uk>
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 20:16:54 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n898
Well that is not what I meant.
Usually these types have fairly high mu (except E282F = 25 gm, 30+) so they
look superficially attractive as input stages.
Certainly with MC cartridges they are fine; trouble is, I cannot afford a
new MC cartridge - and I never see them for sale S/H!
As an input stage for a simple SE amplifier say with a 300B or 211 I would
think that an E810F running at about 25mA would be very attractive - when
driven from a CD player. Not much good with the average tuner though.
And I build only p-p amplifiers, and with the gain of the line stage I do
not need very much mu, so E88CC/288CC or 6SN7 does just nicely (as a diff.
pair of course :-).
Regards
Paul
- -----Original Message-----
From: evaguido [mailto:EvaGuido@iaehv.nl]
Sent: 03 June 2001 11:51
To: P de R. Leclercq; Remco Stoutjesdijk; sound@lists.io.com
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
Hi Paul,
If I read your words well, you think you ommit the high Cga as a problem,
by driving them with low(er) impedance, and maintaing advantage of the high
linearity ?
regards
- -
Guido
At 21:24 2-6-01 -0700, P de R. Leclercq wrote:
>If you want linearity then look no further than 6J5/6SN7.
>
>Most of the frame grid pentodes make very linear triodes
>(E282F/E180F/E810F/E280F/D3A/E55L) but generally you pay for this with high
>Ca-g (except D3A) and possible higher distortion.
>
>Interestingly, 813, definitely not a frame grid valve is very linear as a
>triode.
>
>Paul
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-sound@lists.io.com [mailto:owner-sound@lists.io.com]On
>Behalf Of Remco Stoutjesdijk
>Sent: 02 June 2001 06:37
>To: sound@lists.io.com
>Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
>
>
>
>>Their curves look very fine (straight) , especially if you consider they
>>are intenden for computer use.......
>
>Eh, hold it a minute, they were meant for ANALOG computers. Just like the
>5687. Mostly in opamp circuits where they are (were) the differential input
>pair.
>
>That makes a little more sense, huh?
>
>BTW for a REALLY linear tube, check out the curves of the PC86. That's just
>scary!!!
>
>Regards,
>
>Remco
>--
>http://www.ultranalog.com
>
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:51:00 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n898
Hi Paul,
If I read your words well, you think you ommit the high Cga as a problem,
by driving them with low(er) impedance, and maintaing advantage of the high
linearity ?
regards
- -
Guido
At 21:24 2-6-01 -0700, P de R. Leclercq wrote:
>If you want linearity then look no further than 6J5/6SN7.
>
>Most of the frame grid pentodes make very linear triodes
>(E282F/E180F/E810F/E280F/D3A/E55L) but generally you pay for this with high
>Ca-g (except D3A) and possible higher distortion.
>
>Interestingly, 813, definitely not a frame grid valve is very linear as a
>triode.
>
>Paul
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-sound@lists.io.com [mailto:owner-sound@lists.io.com]On
>Behalf Of Remco Stoutjesdijk
>Sent: 02 June 2001 06:37
>To: sound@lists.io.com
>Subject: RE: [JN] e182cc
>
>
>
>>Their curves look very fine (straight) , especially if you consider they
>>are intenden for computer use.......
>
>Eh, hold it a minute, they were meant for ANALOG computers. Just like the
>5687. Mostly in opamp circuits where they are (were) the differential input
>pair.
>
>That makes a little more sense, huh?
>
>BTW for a REALLY linear tube, check out the curves of the PC86. That's just
>scary!!!
>
>Regards,
>
>Remco
>--
>http://www.ultranalog.com
>
=========================================================================
From: Buschmann <bmann@nexgo.de>
Subject: [JN] e182cc versus 5687
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 04:34:21 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n936
hi everybody,
to hot for soldering or listening in germany - but time for telling the
world some of my latest findings.
a couple of weeks ago, i asked about 5687 vs e182cc. most joes say: forget
about that euro-valve (182) - go for the us-tube (5687). as far as i recall,
the french-connection was very anti 182 ("harsh and stridend").
the result after some experiments: fixed grid-bias via battery, cathode
grounded, output-transformer. grid-stopper soldered close to the socket.
in this line-amp the winner is: e 182 cc - open, gutsy and spectacular
the looser: 5687 (tungsol with and without gyro) - soft (maybe mushy), a
little lighter, nice for falling asleep.
"harsh and stridend"? well, two things fixed it: soldering the grid-stopper
close to the socket-pin (thangs guido!) - a little stunt i could hear!
fixed battery bias made it even smoother....
and - most important: run them 182 hot! in my case it is s.th around 20ma.
btw.: i like the 5687 better with the op of the 182. testing the 182 in your
gear with the op of the 5687 seems to be no good idea.. maybe one reason wy
so many of you dislike the 182..
of course this is all my very one personal thinking (hearing). feel free to
tell the world different results - ah, please do so!!
and if you do: what about the ps for my little line-stage: is regulation a
good thing? what about those regulation tubes?
and what to do with those 6as7g (tfk) i recently bought???
but it is to hot for...
greetings
jörg
=========================================================================
From: pderl@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: [JN] e182cc versus 5687
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:24:27 +0100 (BST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n936
Speaking as a member of the strident persuasion I nevertheless am pleased that you have found someth
ing you like. Sadly I gave away all my E182CCs/7119s some thime ago so I cannot let you have them.
The valves are quite different from one another and operating points are obviously important.
Now give your ears a treat and try 6350!
Regards
Paul
>
> the result after some experiments: fixed grid-bias via battery, cathode
> grounded, output-transformer. grid-stopper soldered close to the socket.
>
> in this line-amp the winner is: e 182 cc - open, gutsy and spectacular
> the looser: 5687 (tungsol with and without gyro) - soft (maybe mushy), a
> little lighter, nice for falling asleep.
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: Re: [JN] e182cc versus 5687
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:22:35 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n937
Hi
All I can add that I found huge differences in-between the various brands
of E182, and even within one manufacturer (I think I already know 11 types
made by Philips.....)
Some among them are very fine !
I'll take a Philips and a Mullard in my DAC, to Arhus
Guido
At 04:34 30-7-01 -0700, Buschmann wrote:
>hi everybody,
>
>to hot for soldering or listening in germany - but time for telling the
>world some of my latest findings.
>
>a couple of weeks ago, i asked about 5687 vs e182cc. most joes say: forget
>about that euro-valve (182) - go for the us-tube (5687). as far as i recall,
>the french-connection was very anti 182 ("harsh and stridend").
>
>the result after some experiments: fixed grid-bias via battery, cathode
>grounded, output-transformer. grid-stopper soldered close to the socket.
>
>in this line-amp the winner is: e 182 cc - open, gutsy and spectacular
>the looser: 5687 (tungsol with and without gyro) - soft (maybe mushy), a
>little lighter, nice for falling asleep.
>
>"harsh and stridend"? well, two things fixed it: soldering the grid-stopper
>close to the socket-pin (thangs guido!) - a little stunt i could hear!
>fixed battery bias made it even smoother....
>
>and - most important: run them 182 hot! in my case it is s.th around 20ma.
>btw.: i like the 5687 better with the op of the 182. testing the 182 in your
>gear with the op of the 5687 seems to be no good idea.. maybe one reason wy
>so many of you dislike the 182..
>
>of course this is all my very one personal thinking (hearing). feel free to
>tell the world different results - ah, please do so!!
>
>and if you do: what about the ps for my little line-stage: is regulation a
>good thing? what about those regulation tubes?
>
>and what to do with those 6as7g (tfk) i recently bought???
>but it is to hot for...
>
>greetings
>jörg
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: Re: [JN] e182cc versus 5687
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:23:30 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n937
Hi Paul
The Japanese seem to like the 6350, see this type a lot in all their circuits
Guido
At 14:24 30-7-01 +0100, pderl@btinternet.com wrote:
>Speaking as a member of the strident persuasion I nevertheless am pleased
>that you have found something you like. Sadly I gave away all my
>E182CCs/7119s some thime ago so I cannot let you have them.
>
>The valves are quite different from one another and operating points are
>obviously important.
>
>Now give your ears a treat and try 6350!
>
>Regards
>
>Paul
>
>>
>> the result after some experiments: fixed grid-bias via battery, cathode
>> grounded, output-transformer. grid-stopper soldered close to the socket.
>>
>> in this line-amp the winner is: e 182 cc - open, gutsy and spectacular
>> the looser: 5687 (tungsol with and without gyro) - soft (maybe mushy), a
>> little lighter, nice for falling asleep.
=========================================================================
From: Paolo Del Giusto <paolo.delgiusto@studioidea.it>
Subject: Re: [JN] e182cc versus 5687
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:11:45 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n937
At 19.22 30/07/2001, you wrote:
>Hi
>
>All I can add that I found huge differences in-between the various brands
>of E182, and even within one manufacturer (I think I already know 11 types
>made by Philips.....)
>
>Some among them are very fine !
>
>I'll take a Philips and a Mullard in my DAC, to Arhus
>
>Guido
Hi Guido,
please let me know your opinions about the best type/brand of ecc182. I'm
one of the fans.....
Bye!!!
- -------------------------------------------------
- ----------------Paolo Del Giusto-----------------
- -------------------------------------------------
- ----------paolo.delgiusto@studioidea.it----------
- -------------------------------------------------
- ------------------ICQ 111446488------------------
- -------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
From: "Farwell-Clay" <wclay@mediaone.net>
Subject: [JN] E810 sheets again
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:15:43 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n639
Sorry, may have to get in through here...
http://home.planet.nl/~frank.philipse/frank/frank.html
Walter
=========================================================================
From: "David Ruhle" <ruhle@hotmail.com>
Subject: [JN] E92CC?
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:44:59 -0000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n789
Hey Joes, has anyone experimented with this tube? If so I'd be interested in
hearing your impressions. Seems to have a good bit of drive and a rather low
Rp, though the data sheets I found warn against noise, hum and microphony.
- -Dave
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: Re: [JN] E92CC?
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:40:35 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n789
David
No experience but the curves do not look that straight......
Has been designed for ? My databook doesn't tell me
Guido
At 21:44 22-1-01 +0000, David Ruhle wrote:
>Hey Joes, has anyone experimented with this tube? If so I'd be interested in
>hearing your impressions. Seems to have a good bit of drive and a rather low
>Rp, though the data sheets I found warn against noise, hum and microphony.
>-Dave
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
=========================================================================
From: "David Ruhle" <ruhle@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [JN] E92CC?
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:33:00 -0000
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n789
Thanks guys - I think I need my eyesight checked! At first glance it didn't
look bad to me for some reason (of course this was after countless cups of
coffee and a lack of sleep), but I broke out the ruler and sure enough, its
pretty darn hard to find a roughly linear spot unless you keep the input
signal around 1v or less and stay away from 0v bias. This was a computer
tube from the late fifties. -Dave
>From: "P de R. Leclercq" <triode@freenetname.co.uk>
>To: "evaguido" <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>, "David Ruhle" <ruhle@hotmail.com>,
><sound@lists.io.com>
>Subject: RE: [JN] E92CC?
>Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:08:38 -0800
>
>This is a 7-pin double triode with a single cathode - like 6J6/ECC91 (the 9
>always means 7pins).
>
>Guido is right, it's not very linear and with mu of 42 but with Ca-g of up
>to 4pf plus a best-case ra of 7.5k, it looks best to leave this one alone.
>
>I have no idea what it was intended for - possibly oscillators ors the
>like.
>
>regards,
>
>Paul Leclercq
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-sound@lists.io.com [mailto:owner-sound@lists.io.com]On
>Behalf Of evaguido
>Sent: 22 January 2001 14:41
>To: David Ruhle; sound@lists.io.com
>Subject: Re: [JN] E92CC?
>
>
>David
>
>No experience but the curves do not look that straight......
>
>Has been designed for ? My databook doesn't tell me
>
>Guido
>
>At 21:44 22-1-01 +0000, David Ruhle wrote:
> >Hey Joes, has anyone experimented with this tube? If so I'd be interested
>in
> >hearing your impressions. Seems to have a good bit of drive and a rather
>low
> >Rp, though the data sheets I found warn against noise, hum and
>microphony.
> >-Dave
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
=========================================================================
From: Mogens Christiansen <mkc@post8.tele.dk>
Subject: [JN] EAR834P
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 08:57:45 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n723
Hi
I have downloaded the EAR834P schematic from the x-drive. I want to try
it out, but the schematic says nothing about the secondary voltages of
the transformer.
Can any of you help me with these voltages?
Best regards,
Mogens Christiansen.
=========================================================================
From: Andrej Deticek <andrej.deticek@amis.net>
Subject: Re: [JN] EAR834P
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 09:48:19 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n723
Hello!
I have measured the secondaries voltages in my friend's unit (operating,
so these are loaded secondaries values) and they are:
1) Plate voltage secondary = 110 VAC
2) Heaters voltage secondary = 27.5 VAC
Rectified DCV values (measured on the first electrolytic after
rectifying diodes) are:
1) 285 VDC
2) 32.5 VDC
Contact me if you would like to get other tube electrodes DC voltages.
Regards,
Andrej Deticek
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Mogens Christiansen wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I have downloaded the EAR834P schematic from the x-drive. I want to try
> it out, but the schematic says nothing about the secondary voltages of
> the transformer.
>
> Can any of you help me with these voltages?
>
> Best regards,
> Mogens Christiansen.
=========================================================================
From: Mogens Christiansen <mkc@post8.tele.dk>
Subject: [JN] EAR834P
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:01:48 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n723
Hi Andrej
Thanks for the quick reply. I think this will do, but I might take you
up on the offer for more measurements.
Thanks again. Your guys are great.
Best regards,
Mogens Christiansen
Andrej Deticek wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I have measured the secondaries voltages in my friend's unit (operating,
> so these are loaded secondaries values) and they are:
>
> 1) Plate voltage secondary = 110 VAC
> 2) Heaters voltage secondary = 27.5 VAC
>
> Rectified DCV values (measured on the first electrolytic after
> rectifying diodes) are:
>
> 1) 285 VDC
> 2) 32.5 VDC
>
> Contact me if you would like to get other tube electrodes DC voltages.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrej Deticek
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Mogens Christiansen wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I have downloaded the EAR834P schematic from the x-drive. I want to try
> > it out, but the schematic says nothing about the secondary voltages of
> > the transformer.
> >
> > Can any of you help me with these voltages?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Mogens Christiansen.
=========================================================================
From: "Ion Bebe Bucur" <bebe@cstdev.cst.ro>
Subject: Re: [JN] EAR834P
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:35:33 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n723
Hi Christiansen,
I could help you to find these voltages but I would need schematic. How
could I download EAR834P schematic, please?
Warm regards,
Bebe
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Mogens Christiansen" <mkc@post8.tele.dk>
To: "Joenet (E-Mail)" <sound@lists.io.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 9:57 AM
Subject: [JN] EAR834P
> Hi
>
> I have downloaded the EAR834P schematic from the x-drive. I want to try
> it out, but the schematic says nothing about the secondary voltages of
> the transformer.
>
> Can any of you help me with these voltages?
>
> Best regards,
> Mogens Christiansen.
=========================================================================
From: critter <retrovox@bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: [JN] EAR834P
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:15:51 +1100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n724
>1) Plate voltage secondary = 110 VAC
>2) Heaters voltage secondary = 27.5 VAC
>
>Rectified DCV values (measured on the first electrolytic after
>rectifying diodes) are:
>
>1) 285 VDC
>2) 32.5 VDC
To get 285 VDC from a 110 VAC secondary it is probably a voltage doubler
spower supply.
=========================================================================
From: STEVE CORNETT <SCORNETT@usagroup.com>
Subject: [JN] EAR 834 phono question
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:52:33 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n014
Rimmer posted:
"...EAR 834P MM/MC phono stage (V1, V2 = Mullard long plate 12AX7, V3
Tele ribbed 12AU7) "
OK, stupid question time. Which socket in the 834 is V3? Are they V1 to V3
front to back?
Steve C.
=========================================================================
From: Milton Martins <milton@naplesnet.com>
Subject: RE: [JN] EAR 834 phono question
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:36:43 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n014
OK, stupid question time. Which socket in the 834 is V3? Are they V1 to V3
front to back?
[] There's no stupid question.
Well, except maybe this:
"But officer, isn't wrong to give me a warning only, when in fact I was speeding?"
Milton
=========================================================================
From: Michael Greene <mgreene@bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [JN] EAR 834 phono question
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:01:26 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n014
Hi,
I noticed this also - why use a 12AU7? To get lower gain?
Mike
STEVE CORNETT wrote:
> Rimmer posted:
>
> "...EAR 834P MM/MC phono stage (V1, V2 = Mullard long plate 12AX7, V3
> Tele ribbed 12AU7) "
>
> OK, stupid question time. Which socket in the 834 is V3? Are they V1 to V3
> front to back?
>
> Steve C.
=========================================================================
From: Rimmer de Vries <rdevries@ameritech.net>
Subject: Re: [JN] EAR 834 phono question
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:19:54 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n014
V3 is in the front. The EAR importer said you can use 12au7 in the V2
and V3 positions but needed a 12ax7 in the V3 cathode follower position.
My guess it this was a design compromise to enable the unit to "drive" a
power amp or a insensitive linestage.
Rimmer
Michael Greene wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I noticed this also - why use a 12AU7? To get lower gain?
>
> Mike
>
> STEVE CORNETT wrote:
>
> > Rimmer posted:
> >
> > "...EAR 834P MM/MC phono stage (V1, V2 = Mullard long plate 12AX7, V3
> > Tele ribbed 12AU7) "
> >
> > OK, stupid question time. Which socket in the 834 is V3? Are they V1 to V3
> > front to back?
> >
> > Steve C.
=========================================================================
From: Rimmer de Vries <rdevries@ameritech.net>
Subject: Re: [JN] EAR 834 phono question
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:22:50 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n014
The recommendation of 12au7 over the 12ax7 in the cathod follower
position is based on the Rp of the tubes, the 12au7 has a Rp of 6-7000
and the 12ax7 has an Rp somewhere around 60-70,000. You loose gain
withthe 12AU7, the mu oif the 12au7 is about 20 and the muo fthe 12ax7
is 100what you loose to
Rimmer de Vries wrote:
>
> V3 is in the front. The EAR importer said you can use 12au7 in the V2
> and V3 positions but needed a 12ax7 in the V3 cathode follower position.
> My guess it this was a design compromise to enable the unit to "drive" a
> power amp or a insensitive linestage.
>
> Rimmer
>
> Michael Greene wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed this also - why use a 12AU7? To get lower gain?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > STEVE CORNETT wrote:
> >
> > > Rimmer posted:
> > >
> > > "...EAR 834P MM/MC phono stage (V1, V2 = Mullard long plate 12AX7, V3
> > > Tele ribbed 12AU7) "
> > >
> > > OK, stupid question time. Which socket in the 834 is V3? Are they V1 to V3
> > > front to back?
> > >
> > > Steve C.
=========================================================================
From: Daniel Normolle <monk@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: [JN] EAR 834 phono question
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:36:03 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n014
Michael Greene wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed this also - why use a 12AU7? To get lower gain?
All other things being equal, a higher transconductance tubeis more suitable in a CF stage
than a lower TC tube. The gain
will only be slightly reduced, from, very roughly, 0.99 to
0.95 in switiching from the 12AX7 to the 12AU7.
There are excellent sections on the appropriate design and
application of CF stages in Terman's _Electronic and Radio
Engineering_ and in Valley and Wallman's MIT book. Those
guys won WW II with tubes. If you want to really KNOW
about this stuff, you can find out from them. dpn
=========================================================================
From: evaguido <EvaGuido@iaehv.nl>
Subject: Re: [JN] EAR 834 phono question
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:35:23 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n014
The gain loss is defined by ratio of 1/s, external impedance, anode-cathode
voltage swing and cathode current variation....
Anode-cathode voltage swing influence is less with a tube with high Rp
flatness of s gives you less distortion due to current variation
high s tubes have lower output impedance
current sourcing the cathode gives lower distortion
Guido
At 11:22 27-1-99 -0500, Rimmer de Vries wrote:
>The recommendation of 12au7 over the 12ax7 in the cathod follower
>position is based on the Rp of the tubes, the 12au7 has a Rp of 6-7000
>and the 12ax7 has an Rp somewhere around 60-70,000. You loose gain
>withthe 12AU7, the mu oif the 12au7 is about 20 and the muo fthe 12ax7
>is 100what you loose to
>
>Rimmer de Vries wrote:
>>
>> V3 is in the front. The EAR importer said you can use 12au7 in the V2
>> and V3 positions but needed a 12ax7 in the V3 cathode follower position.
>> My guess it this was a design compromise to enable the unit to "drive" a
>> power amp or a insensitive linestage.
>>
>> Rimmer
>>
>> Michael Greene wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I noticed this also - why use a 12AU7? To get lower gain?
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > STEVE CORNETT wrote:
>> >
>> > > Rimmer posted:
>> > >
>> > > "...EAR 834P MM/MC phono stage (V1, V2 = Mullard long plate 12AX7, V3
>> > > Tele ribbed 12AU7) "
>> > >
>> > > OK, stupid question time. Which socket in the 834 is V3? Are they V1
to V3
>> > > front to back?
>> > >
>> > > Steve C.
>
>
=========================================================================
From: "T. Loesch" <ezee_e@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [JN] EAR 834 phono question
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:23:23 PST
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n015
Hi there,
>Just a note to say I tried my 834 with a 12AU7 in the V3 position
>last night. Not a huge difference but somewhat better.
Well, the Cathode Follower in the EAR 834P is running at about 1mA. To
get some real Improvement stick a 12AU7/5814 in this position and use a
constant current soure with about 5mA in the Cathode to goose up the
sonics....
At the very least change the Cathode Resistors (for V3) to 15k to run
some more current through the valve if a 12AU7/5814 is used
>Didn't lose much gain, really, that I could tell.
Well, it wouldn't. There is a NFB Loop around this part of the Circuit
and this offset any change there. And there is not much loss there in
the first place.
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: STEVE CORNETT <SCORNETT@usagroup.com>
Subject: [JN] EAR 834 phono question
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:48:14 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n015
Just a note to say I tried my 834 with a 12AU7 in the V3 position last night.
Not a huge difference but somewhat better. Didn't lose much gain, really,
that I could tell. I pulled the 5751s and put in 12AX7s in the V1 and V2 slots.
Tonight I'll probably put the 5751s back in with the 12AU7 and see what
that's like. If anyone besides me has one of these at home, give this a try.
Steve C.
=========================================================================
From: Allen Wright <AllenVSE@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: [JN] EAR 834 phono question
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:24:17 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n016
Rimmer wrote:
>>>The recommendation of 12au7 over the 12ax7 in the cathod follower
position is based on the Rp of the tubes...<<<
But they both make hopeless cathode followers IMHO if you want what a CF
can offer: low output Z.
No lower than 500ohms for either of them in theory and higher in practice.
Tek and hp used a lot of 6922's and other high gM tubes for this tough old
task...
Allen (VSE)
=========================================================================
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
Subject: [JN] Early July 4th!
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:29:52 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n187
Inadvertently built my very own "Real McCoy" amplifier tonight! I wanted to
try some bigger caps on the 845, so I strung together three 960uF
Cornell-Dubellier monsters and placed what I *thought* were 390K carbons
across each one to equalize the voltage. Well, they were actually 39 OHMS.
Made a very pretty fireworks display. Luckily had a smallish slo-blo in the
mains line... Don't try this just to impress the kids!
- --
Grover Gardner
groverg@postoffice.att.net
=========================================================================
From: bobc@cwix.com
Subject: Re: [JN] Early July 4th!
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 06:04:46 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n187
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Grover Gardner <groverg@postoffice.att.net>
To: <sound@lists.io.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 11:29 PM
Subject: [JN] Early July 4th!
> Inadvertently built my very own "Real McCoy" amplifier tonight!
Grover,
We all know that the Real McCoy amplifiers are highly refined and amazingly
successful products, which are only purchased by people who don't have to
ask the price! When they blow up the owner just puts it in the trash and
orders another. :) :)
> I wanted to
> try some bigger caps on the 845, so I strung together three 960uF
> Cornell-Dubellier monsters and placed what I *thought* were 390K carbons
> across each one to equalize the voltage. Well, they were actually 39
OHMS.
You know Rat Shack has a thing for about a buck that has three little
wheels with the color codes. :)
> Made a very pretty fireworks display.
You are lucky you are not in New York, the Mayor would have had you arrested
for an illegal fireworks display...
> Luckily had a smallish slo-blo in the
> mains line... Don't try this just to impress the kids!
Glad you are OK...
Bob
=========================================================================
From: Carter Hendricks <carterh@crl.com>
Subject: [JN] 'EarMax' schematic - it's here [1996!]
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:49:08 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n010
>
>>X-POP3-Rcpt: carterh@mail
>>Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 22:21:56 GMT
>>Date: Mon, 29 Jan 96 22:22:21 GMT
>>From: Lancelot Dow <dow@ccmail.ram.co.uk>
>>To: sound@mail.tpoint.net
>>Subject: 'EarMax' schematic - it's here.
>>
>> Right fellas, it's here. The 'Earmax' schematic - a uuencoded
>> gif, as promised. It's a bit messy in places as I didn't load the
>> original squarely in the scanner. Never mind.
>>
>> Just to recap, for those who missed the beginning of this thread,
>> this is NOT the real Earmax schematic. It is the result of
>> 'reverse engineering' by someone with a very good working
>> knowledge of valves, after reading a review of the Earmax.
>> However, he argues quite strongly, that because of the
>> constraints of the specification, few other topologies would
>> work. So he's quite convinced that he's got it right.
>>
>> He describes the design process over two A4 pages, which I won't
>> try and re-type. Instead, I'll just highlight a few interesting
>> points.
>>
>> It's designed to drive 'phones of 200R-2k impedance. To do this
>> he needed to get the output impedance down to about 10 ohms. He
>> decided not to use feedback to achieve this value so the White
>> follower was chosen for the output stage. Running at 10mA, the
>> calculated output impedance is 6 ohms.
>>
>> The real Earmax uses an ECC81 as the input valve. He felt that
>> the low anode current required for this stage would lead to noise
>> and gain problems with that valve, so he used the ECC88 instead
>> (he has a soft spot for this one anyway). With an anode current
>> of approx. 1mA the overall gain of the amp is said to be around
>> 28.
>>
>> It's clear from some of the quoted voltages that this is all
>> theoretical. At the time of publishing the circuit (about nine
>> months ago) he hadn't actually built it. However, it looks simple
>> enough for any one of us to knock up over a weekend, using parts
>> from the junk box. Whoever gets there first, let the rest of us
>> know how you got on.
>>
>>
>> Lance
>> dow@ccmail.ram.co.uk
>>
>
>
>
=========================================================================
From: Joseph Lowe <jlowe@cdc.net>
Subject: Re: [JN] 'EarMax' schematic - it's here [1996!]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:52:38 -0500 (EST)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n013
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Carter Hendricks wrote:
> >> It's designed to drive 'phones of 200R-2k impedance. To do this
> >> he needed to get the output impedance down to about 10 ohms. He
> >> decided not to use feedback to achieve this value so the White
> >> follower was chosen for the output stage. Running at 10mA, the
> >> calculated output impedance is 6 ohms.
Try 6CW5/EL86 running +/- 200V supply rails in a white follower. It will
drive a 300 Ohm load to 20V, flat to about 850Khz. Makes one hell of a
headphone amp.
=========================================================================
From: TubeGarden@aol.com
Subject: Re: [JN] earo comparo
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 15:47:25 EST
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n768
- --part1_3b.e2b2025.277517dd_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
greets!
Basil in the pot does not improve the sound.
Pot in the basil...
Hippy Years!
Al B^}
- --part1_3b.e2b2025.277517dd_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2>greets!
<BR>
<BR>Basil in the pot does not improve the sound.
<BR>
<BR>Pot in the basil...
<BR>
<BR>Hippy Years!
<BR>Al B^}
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>
- --part1_3b.e2b2025.277517dd_boundary--
=========================================================================
From: "Ed Coleman" <ecoleman@whidbey.net>
Subject: [JN] Earthquake proof?
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 13:36:37 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n447
Hey joes, Living in the Pacific northwest of the usa ,I'm reminded from time
to time that we are overdo for "the big one" and was wondering if anyonehad
any suggestions as to anchoring my amps down so they'll be one less thing to
worry about ? TIA Ed
=========================================================================
From: "Ed Coleman" <ecoleman@whidbey.net>
Subject: Re: [JN] Earthquake proof?
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:00:46 -0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n447
Well, I'd love to have them on the floor BUT , I have to deal with the saf
,and 2 curious boys, aged 4 and 8 ,so I'm sorta back to the rack. Ed
- -----Original Message-----
From: David Barnett <davidbarnett@aristotle.net>
To: sound@lists.io.com <sound@lists.io.com>
Date: Saturday, February 12, 2000 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [JN] Earthquake proof?
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 13:36:37 -0800, "Ed Coleman"
><ecoleman@whidbey.net> wrote:
>
>>Living in the Pacific northwest of the usa ,I'm reminded from time
>>to time that we are overdo for "the big one" and was wondering if
anyonehad
>>any suggestions as to anchoring my amps down so they'll be one less thing
to
>>worry about ?
>
>I hope this doesn't sound too flippant, but if you keep them on the
>floor then there'll be nowhere for them to fall. Then all you have to
>worry about is something falling ON them.
>
>--dnb
>
=========================================================================
From: David Barnett <davidbarnett@aristotle.net>
Subject: Re: [JN] Earthquake proof?
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:26:08 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n447
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 13:36:37 -0800, "Ed Coleman"
<ecoleman@whidbey.net> wrote:
>Living in the Pacific northwest of the usa ,I'm reminded from time
>to time that we are overdo for "the big one" and was wondering if anyonehad
>any suggestions as to anchoring my amps down so they'll be one less thing to
>worry about ?
I hope this doesn't sound too flippant, but if you keep them on the
floor then there'll be nowhere for them to fall. Then all you have to
worry about is something falling ON them.
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: David Barnett <davidbarnett@aristotle.net>
Subject: Re: [JN] Earthquake proof?
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 19:34:05 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n447
On Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:00:46 -0800, "Ed Coleman"
<ecoleman@whidbey.net> wrote:
>Well, I'd love to have them on the floor BUT , I have to deal with the saf
>,and 2 curious boys, aged 4 and 8 ,so I'm sorta back to the rack
Perhaps a tube cage would keep out prying fingers and paws?
- -d-nb
=========================================================================
From: "Warren Tremain" <warren2@gate.net>
Subject: Re: [JN] Earthquake proof?
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 22:03:08 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n447
Try using L brackets to attach your stand to the wall
attach one part to a stud and the other to the stop of
the stand.
=========================================================================
From: "PEARL Cust. Service" <custserv@pearl-hifi.com>
Subject: [JN] Eating Crow
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 10:24:51 -0600
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n922
Subject: scary but true
According to the Knight-Rider News Service, the inscription on the metal
bands used by the U.S. Department of the Interior to tag migratory birds has
been changed. The bands used to bear the address of the Washington Biological
Survey, abbreviated:
Wash. Biol. Surv.
until the agency received the following letter from an ARKANSAS camper:
Dear Sirs:
While camping last week I shot one of your birds. I think it was a crow.
I followed the cooking instructions on the leg tag and I want to tell you, it
was horrible."
The bands are now marked Fish and Wildlife Service.
Bill Perkins - PEARL, Calgary, Canada.
=========================================================================
From: "PEARL Cust Serv" <custserv@pearl-hifi.com>
Subject: [JN] eBay Bots ? ? ?
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 11:30:39 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n354
Hi:
Does anyone know where I can a find a >> voracious << eBay
bidding bot :>) ?
Bill - PEARL
=========================================================================
From: "PEARL Cust Serv" <custserv@pearl-hifi.com>
Subject: [JN] eBay item Heathkit IM 5248 IM distortion Analyzer
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 00:34:10 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n750
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=514710379
No relation . . .
BP
=========================================================================
From: "PEARL Cust Serv" <custserv@pearl-hifi.com>
Subject: [JN] ebay PS
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 19:26:59 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n339
Hey Joes:
Here's another PS on eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=202004926
U.S. Navy Surplus Variable Voltage Requlated Power Supply. Built by Oregon
Electronics. Completely Tube Based. Provides variable voltages of 0 to
- -300vdc and 0 to +300vdc at the same time. Meter reads voltage and amperage
to 200ma. Supply also has fixed outputs of +400v and 6.3v at 5A. Powers up
and works. Missing one know. negative voltage pot needs to be replaced.
Bill - PEARL, Inc.
=========================================================================
From: "Le Cleac'h J.-M." <lecleach@cgi.ensmp.fr>
Subject: [JN] EBS: few websites
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 18:30:13 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n200
Hello everyone,
I found some informations on the Web about EBS alignments. As it could
interest some of you, I send some chosen excerpts of several wabsite (URL
given)
Best regards,
Jean-Michel Le Cleac'h, Paris, France
**********************************************************************
http://www.argo.net.au/pickford/beymer/impqts.htm
That's about a software (?) called Quick Cabinet and related to the
importance of Qts, see also on the same website:
http://www.argo.net.au/pickford/beymer/NEW-ALIGNMENTS.htm
new alignments (and EBS)
To provide a different alternative to the problems of the QB3 alignment,
the Extended Bass Shelf (EBS) alignment is provided in Quick Cabinet. The
name was derived simply from the visible appearance of the response curve.
The bass response is extended to a lower frequency than would be possible
from the QB3 alignment, but at a lower level or shelf relative to the mid
band level. Although the EBS alignment is not a nice neat flat alignment
such as the QB3, it is very often a much better choice than the QB3. The
EBS alignment has some interesting features. Consider a loudspeaker with a
Qts of 0.30, the QB3 alignment would have about 2dB more output at a
frequency of twice the Fs, while the EBS alignment would have over 2db more
output at Fs. In most cases the EBS alignments will have far more
subjective bass than the QB3 alignments. Also, if you were to equalize the
responses flat to Fs, 10db more boost would be required for the QB3 versus
the EBS. This can dramatically consume large amounts of headroom in the
power amplifier, and may also far exceed the linear excursion limits of the
speaker. A benefit of the EBS alignment is that Fp=Fs. The EBS alignment
will maintain much lower cone excursion at frequencies near Fs than is
possible with the QB3 alignment. This can be very important for high power
systems.
http://www.speakerbuilding.com/amateur/tangen.html
The selected box volume and tuning gives a frequency response that falls
off smooth down to cut-off (about 16 Hz). This aligment type is named
'Extended Bass Shelf' in the LEAP computer program. The selected volume and
tuning was determined by first choosing a cut-off frequency, and place the
box tuning frequency around that frequency. Next was to play around with
the box volume to get a reasonable frequency response that neither fell off
too much, nor created at big bump in the response just above cut-off . The
latter type will detoriate the transient- and frequency-response.
The Extended Bass Shelf alignment relies on some EQ to obtain a reasonably
flat response. Since active filtering is the only practical solution for
crossover networks at low frequencies, it is simply to add another filter
circuit in the active crossover to do the necessary EQ.
http://www.spiceisle.com/homepages/brian/audiodiy/prt/ported5.htm
"Extended Bass Shelf", or EBS, systems are ported systems that are usually
characterized as follows:
The volume of the box is larger (sometimes significantly larger) than that
of a maximally flat ported system using the same driver.
The tuning frequency of the enclosure is at or close to Fs, the driver's
resonance frequency
The power handling of the EBS is lower in the midbass frequencies when
compared to the maximally flat systems. However, the power handling at
lower frequencies is usually better.
As with the standard ported systems, almost any driver can be used.
However, the best results will be obtained with drivers of Qts <0.35.
One of the main reasons given for using an EBS system instead of the usual
"maximally-flat" systems is to take advantage of "room-gain", the increase
the bass response at lower frequencies, starting at around 1dB at 30 Hz and
increasing to 9dB at 20 Hz, that you get in most rooms. This "room-gain"
can tend to produce a boomy response with speakers designed to maximally
flat to frequencies below 30 Hz. To design an EBS system, use any box
frequency response modelling software (like my spreadsheet) and model the
response of a system using your driver, where the box size is 160% to 180%
the volume suggested for a maximally flat response. Then, set the tuning
frequency to near Fs for the driver. If the cabinet is too large, the
frequency response curve will be peaked below the shelf. Too small, and the
shelf will be attenuated. Adjust the cabinet size to suit. If the tuning
frequency is too low, the shelf will roll off prematurely. Too high and the
response peaks at the bottom of the shelf and the premature rolloff occurs
again. Adjust the tuning frequency accordingly. When tuned just right, the
shelf level is not too low, and reasonably extended, with a smooth low end
rolloff. Note also that if the box is very big compared to what's called
for in a maximally flat alignment, there's a loss in midrange efficiency
that may be more important than the small increase in low frequency output.
http://www.surfnetusa.com/sho/webtext5.html
This produces what is known as an EBS(extended bass shelf) alignment. By
using a box volume that is a little larger than the traditional QB3
alignment and a port length a little longer than usually required the
response falls off gradually below 50 Hz. The in room response is boosted
somewhat producing a flat response to below 30 Hz. This eliminates a lot of
the boominess sometimes associated with ported speakers. That's what the
theory says anyway. One problem I have with these particular boxes is high
frequency noise radiating back out of the port.
=========================================================================
From: "Jon Lane" <jhlane@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: [JN] EBS: few websites
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 17:24:21 -0700
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n201
I've been under the impression that EBS alignments fail to pass
critical evaluations relative to standard QB3 enclosures. While
I cannot fire LEAP up until next week in order to confirm, I
recall the argument against EBS cites the fact the system is
tuned to resonance - while QB3 boxes place fs in the stopband -
and mentions the notion that EBS has more group delay. Can
anyone confirm?
JL
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Le Cleac'h J.-M. <lecleach@cgi.ensmp.fr>
To: <sound@deliverator.io.com>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 1999 9:30 AM
Subject: [JN] EBS: few websites
> Hello everyone,
>
> I found some informations on the Web about EBS alignments. As
it could
> interest some of you, I send some chosen excerpts of several
wabsite (URL
> given)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jean-Michel Le Cleac'h, Paris, France
=========================================================================
From: StepHydro@aol.com
Subject: [JN] EC31 sub
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:13:11 EDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n686
Joes,
Does anyone know of a US tube type that is a close sub (characteristics) for
an EC31?
Cheers/Don Carron
=========================================================================
From: Christian Rintelen <christian@rintelen.ch>
Subject: [JN] EC8020 warning
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:17:37 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n638
Joes
I just stumbled across the "Nor'Easter" amp in the latest issue of
Valve. The author said he got some EC8020 at USD 50.00 each from
Richardson. I thought, hmm, cool, let's get some... One look at the
photograph of the amp told me that he's actually using National EC8020
- - which are in fact relabeled EC8010. The National EC8020 are about
1/2 of the diameter of a real (i.e. Telefunken - I haven't seen any
other) EC8020. The 8010 is more or less a 5842/WE417 - and certainly
not worth $ 50.00!
http://www.duncanamps.com/tubedata/pdf/ec8010.pdf
So if you were at Århus and heard Manfred's spud and think about
building one with those National EC8020 - forget it. The EC8010 has
only 4.2 W dissipation and only 28 mA/V transconductance. Save your
money...
Christian
=========================================================================
From: Mattijs de Vries <mattijs@machmat.com>
Subject: [JN] ECC8100 and 6021/ECC70
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 19:11:43 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n756
Hello All,
I can get a lot of both types. Both look very good to me, has anyone tried
to build anything with these tubes already?
Looking forawrd to your replies! Bye,
_______
Mattijs de Vries, MachMat / _____ \
- ------------------------------------------------- | | ||| | |
E-mail: MdeVries@MachMat.com (Private) | | ||| | |
Sales@MachMat.com (Business) | | ||| | |
URL Tube information: http://www.machmat.com | | ||| | |
URL Tube sales : http://www.tubesforsale.com | |_____| |
Country: The Netherlands, Europe \ ||| /
Phone : +31-55-5332864, Mobile : +31-6-22988417 |/ | \|
- ------------------------------------------------- |_____|
Designing is the art of making compromises. || ||
=========================================================================
From: Zyxtan@aol.com
Subject: [JN] ECC 83
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:06:48 EST
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n048
Trying to refurbish an old Grudig KS 460 U,Werke GMBH FURTH (BAY.)-I am having
trouble locating the ECC 83 tube-it crosses to some more familiar tubes but I
would rather have the ECC 83. Does anyone know a US supplier ?
thanks
paul(zyxtan@aol.com)
=========================================================================
From: Jonathan Morrison <ppdiva@rcn.com>
Subject: Re: [JN] ECC 83
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:41:42 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n048
At 04:06 PM 2/17/99 -0500, Zyxtan@aol.com wrote:
>Trying to refurbish an old Grudig KS 460 U,Werke GMBH FURTH (BAY.)-I am having
>trouble locating the ECC 83 tube-it crosses to some more familiar tubes but I
>would rather have the ECC 83. Does anyone know a US supplier ?
>
>thanks
>
>paul(zyxtan@aol.com)
Ain't gonna find one- just use a smooth plate Telfunken 12ax7/ecc83-
that'll probably be what grundig woulda used- the 12 # is just so they can
sell it in the usa- same tube- JDM
=========================================================================
From: MHuber@t-online.de (Manfred Huber)
Subject: [JN] ED8000 data available
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:24:46 +0200
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n676
Dear Joes,
during the Arhus festival I and some other Joes received a few
ED8000s for free. Many thanks to Guido Tent for his generous gift!
A few days ago Michel Psenicka sent me a .pdf file with data and
curves for this type. The data sheet was scanned by Frank Philipse
but it is not yet available on his site.
Those interested in the data will find the file on my home page:
http://home.t-online.de/~mhuber/ED8000.PDF
(the server is case sensitive!)
Regards
Manfred
- ------------------
Manfred Huber
MHuber@t-online.de
- ------------------
=========================================================================
From: StepHydro@aol.com
Subject: Re: [JN] ED8000 data available
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:51:30 EDT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n677
Manfred,
this looks as if it could be made to work as a replacement for the 7868. Most
of the common replacements are octal and too large in diameter (spacing
distance) to fit the chassis of amps designed for 7868s. 6CK4 fits, but the
OPTs are usually a bit too low Z for best match.
Most amps would require the anode voltage to be reduced...I'd guess that an
input choke would do it; these amps seem to be mostly RC filtered.
The data hit a nerve, as I have a Fisher X100-B that I may someday want to
convert to tirode.
Cheers/Carron
=========================================================================
From: TubeGarden@aol.com
Subject: Re: [JN] Edgar 100 Basshorns
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 13:54:39 EST
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n370
Hi Timo,
Dr. Bruce Edgar is busy getting ready for the CES show in Las Vegas, but, you
can go direct to the source with your questions.
The 100 Hz is available from him for US$ 150.00 and the 80 Hz for US$ 200.00
E-mail:
ehorn@gateway.net
Merry Ears!
Al B^}
=========================================================================
From: Timo Christ <carnivor@uni-bremen.de>
Subject: [JN] Edgar 100 Basshorns
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 15:40:55 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n370
Hi Everybody,
I'm looking for info on the Edgar 100 Hz Basshorns (from System 100); if
one of the proud owners (Hello Chris Beck ! :-) may tell me some
details:
Size of the Box,
Lenght of the Horn,
Curve type,
Mouth area,
Throat area,
Back chamber volume,
Driver you use,
Sandfilled or otherwise damped?,
weight,
Crossover freqquencies,
anything else you consider important.
I'm most grateful!
If anyone has the 80 Hz model i'd also love to hear about it.
Any website with construction details / plan or similar is also welcome
of course. If you'd like to see a truely outstanding work of art
System-100, check out Kerry B's pages: http://community.webtv.net/KerrB
BTW: The horn calculation program based on JML's Spreadsheet is
advancing slowly. I hope to release the basic framework soon so that
more people can get into it. more on that later.
Season's Greetings!
Timo
- --
Timo Christ
EE Student University of Bremen, Germany
carnivore@uni-bremen.de
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~carnivor/
=========================================================================
From: DocGaw@cs.com
Subject: Re: [JN] Edgar 100 Basshorns
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 07:59:06 EST
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n371
Go with the 80 Hz horn if you can. It actually extends pretty well to 60 Hz.
and makes it much easier to mate with a subwoofer. Also the subwoofer is
coming in low enough that with a high drop-off crossover(24 dB) the sub won't
muck up the mid range. You can also still build a cabinet for two with one
sheet of plywood.
Also once you get them in place, fill between the cabinet and horn with sand
to decrease vibrations. They sound wonderful with the electrovoice EV-12 or
15 drivers. The 12's allow you to go up to about 400 Hz. flat, but start
rolling off at about 80, while the 15's go about 60 to 300. in the 80 Hz.
cabinet. I still use three of the 80's as center and surround channels, with
50 Hz straight horns for the L. and R. Bill
=========================================================================
From: Timo Christ <carnivor@uni-bremen.de>
Subject: [JN] Edgar 100Hz horn specs
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 22:46:21 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n371
Hi all,
Dr. Edgar just replied to me with the specs of the Edgar 100 Hz straight
horn (part of the "System 100"):
Box Size: 22"x22"
Horn Length: 16"
Curve: Exponential, approximated in two steps
Mouth Area: 21"x21"
Throat Area: 9"x9"
Driver: EVM12L or EVM15L
Factory version:
damped by ribs, built from MDF
Recommended crossover-freq: 500 Hz
Recommended subwoofer: HSU or Edgar 35 Hz sub horn ("the fridge")
Regards,
Timo
- --
Timo Christ
EE Student University of Bremen, Germany
carnivore@uni-bremen.de
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~carnivor/
=========================================================================
From: gwj <garywj@home.com>
Subject: [JN] Edgar Bass Cabs--Yours for the Taking.
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:09:20 -0400
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n213
I have a pair of Edgar Monolith horns--that's right, they are the same
cabs that were built by Raul Gil, and which appeared in one of the early
editions of SP.
They are yours for the taking--the first person who can come and get
them, can have them.
I am located in Princeton, NJ about Midway between NYC and Philly.
Just the cabs--no speakers. They are very, very large--took me two trips
in my Cherokee to get them in the first place.
Gary 609-275-1120
=========================================================================
From: davidbarnett@aristotle.net (David Barnett)
Subject: Re: [JN] Edgar Bass Cabs--Yours for the Taking.
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:29:36 GMT
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n214
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:09:20 -0400, gwj <garywj@home.com> wrote:
>Just the cabs--no speakers. They are very, very large--took me two trips
>in my Cherokee to get them in the first place.
Gee, then I wonder how many trips it'd take in my Civic CRX?
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: Robert C Chambers <rchamber@norwich.edu>
Subject: Edgar/D54 Midrange Horn - was Re: [JN] Axiom 80
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:21:36 -0400 (EDT)
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n601
Hello-
Wow! This post of Mick's sounds like a genuine testimonial to a (couple
of) great loudspeaker(s). I am more interested in the Edgar Midrange Horn
with the Dynaudio D-54 drive unit. I've been re-reading the original
article in Speaker Builder 1/86.
The D-54 was not one of the drivers considered by Edgar in that article.
Is there anything published since then that covers the use of the D-54
in this horn?
For example, what throat area is used? Also, the original article
referred to spacing the driver away from the throat plate/driver mounting
flange by a distance of 1/2 inch using standoffs and filling the gap with
foam - is this done with the D-54?
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Michael (Mick)Maloney wrote:
> As I didn't have a cabinet to use I put them on an open baffle and used
> them in my active system crossed over at 500Hz and 5KHz
Is this the frequency range you use for the Edgar/D54 unit?
> However, as good as the Axioms are I feel there is something missing in
> comparism with my Edgar/D54 midrange horns- the horns have better dynamics
> and a sense of excitement, slightly more realism and easier to listen to .
> The Goodmans are damn good but you have to "listen" to them with some
> attention to "get" it -whereas with the horns it's obvious and you can just
> relax and be a part of the show.
>
> I think the Edgars are so underrated- fashions come and go and I guess the
> feeling is they've had their turn- but I think they are one of the few
> timeless designs-
I guess he likes 'em.
Any information will be appreciated.
Thanks and Regards,
Robert
=========================================================================
From: Chris and Susan Beck <n9zes@execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Edgar/D54 Midrange Horn - was Re: [JN] Axiom 80
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:26:36 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n601
Hi, Robert!
Re: the D54. I think Edgar found it well after he wrote that original article on
using cone drivers in a tractrix horn. He discovered that it performed quite
well and didn't require the spacing at the throat to "filter" out the humps cone
drivers can have. He still likes it, but has found that the Selenium midrange
compression driver on his mid horn smokes anything he's used to date. It still
requires the use of a tweeter horn, but he finds that it actually provides more
of an accurate presentation than trying to run one driver from 300Hz up to 20kHz.
Best thing is to email him at ehorn@gateway.net and ask him personally. He love
to talk horns.
Have a look at my Edgar based rig: http://www.execpc.com/~n9zes and go to
speakers.
ENJOY!
Chris Beck
Robert C Chambers wrote:
> Hello-
>
> Wow! This post of Mick's sounds like a genuine testimonial to a (couple
> of) great loudspeaker(s). I am more interested in the Edgar Midrange Horn
> with the Dynaudio D-54 drive unit. I've been re-reading the original
> article in Speaker Builder 1/86.
>
> The D-54 was not one of the drivers considered by Edgar in that article.
> Is there anything published since then that covers the use of the D-54
> in this horn?
>
> For example, what throat area is used? Also, the original article
> referred to spacing the driver away from the throat plate/driver mounting
> flange by a distance of 1/2 inch using standoffs and filling the gap with
> foam - is this done with the D-54?
=========================================================================
From: David Barnett <davidbarnett@aristotle.net>
Subject: Re: [JN] Edgarhorn - Demo & Email of Dr. Bruce Edgar
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 11:19:01 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n276
On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:03:42 +0800, "Snoopy" <tcma@netvigator.com>
wrote:
>...a private residence for
>SERIOUS audiophiles.
What is this, some sort of audio nut retirement community?
Skiffleball, Downbeat Blindfold Tests, feeding the pigeons in the
park, arguments about a/b/x testing vs. subjective evaluation, visits
from the grandkids, accuracy vs. euphony discussions, sponge baths,
DIY classes... Hey, did you know that guy in the room down the hall
is Sid Smith?
- --dnb
=========================================================================
From: "Snoopy" <tcma@netvigator.com>
Subject: [JN] Edgarhorn - Demo & Email of Dr. Bruce Edgar
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:03:42 +0800
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n276
Hi all Joenetters,
Dr. Bruce Edgar is having monthly open house demos in Santa Monica. The
next one is scheduled on Oct. 3 Sunday 1-5 p.m. at a private residence for
SERIOUS audiophiles.
If any of you is interested in the demos or his products, you may call
Dr. Edgar at his shop (310-782-8076) or email him direct.
His email address is ehorn@gateway.net.
What I can say is that it's a great pity that I am not living in US, as
there are so many good, honest and helpful people as well as many
world-class high-quality touching music systems over there!
Best Regards,
Tung-cheung MA
11:55 p.m. 12 Sep. 99 HONG KONG
=========================================================================
From: "David B. Klein" <dklein@microtec.net>
Subject: Re: [JN] Edgarhorn - Demo & Email of Dr. Bruce Edgar
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 13:28:02
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n276
A 11:19 AM 9/12/99 -0500, David Barnett a écrit :
>On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:03:42 +0800, "Snoopy" <tcma@netvigator.com>
>wrote:
>
>>...a private residence for
>>SERIOUS audiophiles.
>
>What is this, some sort of audio nut retirement community?
>Skiffleball, Downbeat Blindfold Tests, feeding the pigeons in the
>park, arguments about a/b/x testing vs. subjective evaluation, visits
>from the grandkids, accuracy vs. euphony discussions, sponge baths,
>DIY classes... Hey, did you know that guy in the room down the hall
>is Sid Smith?
>
>--dnb
You have seen the future ...
dbk
=========================================================================
From: "Timo Christ" <tic@vossnet.de>
Subject: [JN] Edgar-Horn driver + Intro
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 17:34:34 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n073
Hello to all!
This is my first post to this list, i just recently subscribed.
I am on the Bass-List and i'm the admin of hifi-diy @ onelist.
To give a short intro ... : i'm 20, male, live in Bremen, Germany. I
am into electronics and speaker building for about a year only.
Horns are my preffered speaker type and i use solid-state amps.
Last autumn i made some experimental tractrix horns following dr.
edgar's design guidelines. At the very moment i'm building mini-VOTs,
following the original altec design but with decreased reflex volume
to 200 L, this brings down the height to 70 cm. The drivers will be
Eminence Kappa 15 LF (formerly EM-15-300-LF). The basic woodworking
is done, the enclosures stand constructed. In two weeks the finish
will be done and i can play them. :-)
For the first time the speaker system will consist of these mini-VOTs
and my experimental edgar horns.
But I want to build new midrange horns, better looking, better driver
(currently i use VIS W100S) and really solid (the experimental horns
are a bit flimsy).
So my question is:
What are good drivers to be edgar-horn-loaded ?
If i could get away without tweeters, that would be great because no
passive crossover would be necessary (bi-amped).
are lowthers usable in this kind of application ?
Thank you and maximum audio fun to you all !
cu
Timo
Timo Christ
tic@vossnet.de
the hifi-DIY mailing list @ www.onelist.com
=========================================================================
From: "Bert Doppenberg" <lowther@wxs.nl>
Subject: Re: [JN] Edgar-Horn driver + Intro
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 19:15:51 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n073
Hi Timo,
Welcome to the list!
Take a look at http://home.wxs.nl/~lowther/final.htm
Regards,
Bert
- ------
E-mail:
Business : BD-Design@lowther.nl
Private : BD@lowther.nl
Lowther Club Holland : LCH@lowther.nl
Homepage : http://www.lowther.nl
Tel./Fax: (0341) 254500 Mobile: (06) 51242990
=========================================================================
From: Roscoe Primrose <roscoe@aiko.com>
Subject: Re: [JN] Edgar-Horn driver + Intro
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:13:46 -0500
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n074
Timo Christ wrote:
Snip...
> allright, but : I want to keep the crossover below the midrange, in
> the midbass area between 200 and 350 Hz. Didn't see any compression
> drivers that match.
You might want to re-evaluate your definition of midrange, I'd say
middle C is into the midrange, and that's only 262Hz...
Peace
- --
Roscoe Primrose -- mailto:roscoe@aiko.com --
http://www.aiko.com/roscoe
"Once in a while you get shown the light
In the strangest of places if you look at it right." Robert Hunter
"640K ought to be enough for anybody" , Bill Gates, 1981
=========================================================================
From: "Timo Christ" <tic@vossnet.de>
Subject: Re: [JN] Edgar-Horn driver + Intro
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 21:36:50 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n074
Hi Joelisters, Jeroen;
Jeroen wrote:
> A good driver to use is the Dynaudio D54. You might be able to find a pair
> second-hand in Klang & Ton. Make sure though that you get the D54, and not
> the D54AF.
Interesting, a fellow i know wants to use the D54AF.. why is it bad ?
> If you do not want to use a tweeter, you will probably have to use a
> compression driver because a cone unit relies on partial breakup of the
> cone to even reach 5kHz.
allright, but : I want to keep the crossover below the midrange, in
the midbass area between 200 and 350 Hz. Didn't see any compression
drivers that match.
How do you rate an active crossover at 1000 Hz, 4th Order L-R ?
In addition to that, will an edgar-style tractrix horn work at all
with a compression driver ? the throat would become very small and
the horn long for a given cutoff frequency.
I tend to believe what edgar tells about narrow horns.
I really would like to go up to 15 kHz with an edgar horn, how about
other fullrange drivers ?
I could experiment with some cheap visaton FR 5" or FR 6,5" ... ? 20
DM each ...
Another Question: Edgar writes that the JBL-5LE features a "high BL
product" , well, how high ? the VIS FR's have BL=2.62 .
> If you're interested in compression drivers, I also have a set 288-16K (16
> ohm).
How much ? I can't spend much.
cu later, thanks,
Timo
Timo Christ
tic@vossnet.de
the hifi-DIY mailing list @ www.onelist.com
=========================================================================
From: "Timo Christ" <tic@vossnet.de>
Subject: Re: [JN] Edgar-Horn driver + Intro
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 22:12:55 +0100
Source: Sound Digest Archive v02.n076
Hi ,
Don Carron wrote;
> I must have missed your first post...deleted it with a bunch of uninteresting
> stuff. Help me catch up.
o.k.
> It seems that you are heading somewhere I'm trying to go. I have given up on a
> true one-speaker-full-range system. Next best would be a system with two
> speakers crossing over below the voice range, say 200 Hz or less. Something
i want to cross over below the midrange, at least under 400 Hz.
currently i'm at 250 Hz 6dB passive bi-amped. When my active
crossover (full DIY) is finished i'll be at 360 Hz or something to
cross my in-the-shop-waiting-to-be-finished mini-VOTs over to the yet
undetermined 300 - 15 kHz system. I want to get rid of all passive
crossovers in my system.
> like an Oris on top, and maybe Thorsten's 4) 15" on a baffle on the bottom.
what is an Oris ? What is Thorsten's 4) 15" ? never heard of it
before, sorry. i joined this list last week.
> well, I can't afford an Oris, so I was wondering if I could make an Edgarhorn
> from 150 or 200 Hz, using a Fostex 6" or something like that as the driver. If
> it rolls off at 14KHz on the top, well, so does a Lowther and lots of people
> like those. What I *don't want* about the Lowther style is a bass that gives
> up at 80 Hz. For this reason, I've started looking away from the
Schmacks,
> etc.
I'm very fond of the solution you propose, using a fullrange driver
in a big edgar horn. One can use a lowther as a wide-band horn
driver, too ! look at Bert Doppenberg's site:
http://home.wxs.nl/~lowther/final.htm
IMHO there are no true full-range drivers which cover the frequency
range from, say, 30 Hz to 17 kHz. Consequence: Two-Way is a must for
bass. I'm going two-way and bi-amped, period. :-)
> I have a question f