Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

What people are working on at the moment
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 20210
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex

#31 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by pre65 »

On my GK-71 amp I only used one power supply, but for the driver valve I used an anode CCS, which I was led to believe sort of isolates the driver from PSU feedback.

Is that correct ?
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. John Lennon

G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 14370
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#32 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by Nick »

A CCS will increase psrr.
Little known fact, coherent thought can destructively interfere with itself leaving no thought at all, that’s why I prefer incoherent thought.
User avatar
Paul Barker
Social Sevices have been notified
Posts: 8247
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:42 pm

#33 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by Paul Barker »

simon wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:00 pm I did notice a difference when I added the driver PS. How much of that was a separate PS and how much was removing burden on the GM70 PS I don't know.
recent example that answers that question if I had asked it of myself of my circumstances, so cant be transferred to any other situation per se. I had two d3a’s pulling total 30mA and two VR’s pulling total 60mA (because that Sunday morning at Owsten I learned the hammond bifilar can only take 15mA, so altered d3a current with kathode bia. But I didnt address the now unnecessary extra shunt current of VR’s. I didnt have stuff like that with me, in a rush I just focused on the interstage. We also altered phase of Hammond; that was the main fault. I lived with the amp until the thought of the over current situation of the VR’s (not from their perspective, but they were toppling the HT transformer out of spec, the vr’s are speced max 40mA) niggled me. so now each vr is 18mA each d3a is 15mA. The minor relief for the ht winding and core, brining them back in spec was better imaging better quiet bits and the impression of better frequency response, though thats not proved in measurements. My aural perception. A very minor change at the input stage a considerably greater aural result overall. One single best power supply I could muster from the parts I already had. Everything affects everything.
simon wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 3:00 pm
What was going through my mind reading this thread was what makes a better PS? I appreciate this is perhaps in the realms of dogma/prejudice/guruism/religion :-D.
No, Im down the line from the beginning, try things find which is better for me. Nothing else to it. Noe prejudice, just base my projects on what Ive learned practically. Theres always more to learn. I dont hold fast to the past, I learn from it.
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe." – Albert Einstein
simon
Eternally single
Posts: 4845
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 11:22 am
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire

#34 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by simon »

Indeed Paul, and I always read your posts with a lot of interest because you have experimented so much and write from experience. So in your view how much would you overrate the trafo current capacity? It's not the only key part of the PS obviously as R C and H are important too, but where would you start with the transformer if you weren't constrained by what you had on the shelf?
User avatar
Paul Barker
Social Sevices have been notified
Posts: 8247
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:42 pm

#35 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by Paul Barker »

Cant say, still learning. But the Ps audio Paul was holding up a little product, whether a dac a preamp a phono stage I dont recall. He may have said. But I recall what he said about power rating. The torroid was ten times over rated and each time he increased it, it was better.

I suppose you only stop when youve not quite spent too much, and when you can no longer lift it.

Same applies in his world to power amps and speakers. That is, in his presently being worked on design, the active midrange and active woofer have 700 watts each I think he said. So we have a mountain to climb if we want to play with them boys.

Ill not try compete, and Im not in a position to argue, that would be ignorant. He’s found this from aural testing. Thats how I work. But my limit stops a ling time before ps audio.
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe." – Albert Einstein
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 14370
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#36 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by Nick »

You do know he is trying to sell something don't you?
Little known fact, coherent thought can destructively interfere with itself leaving no thought at all, that’s why I prefer incoherent thought.
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 20210
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex

#37 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by pre65 »

Nick wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:43 am You do know he is trying to sell something don't you?
Russ Andrews always used to (may still ?) use a much bigger transformer (in va) than you might think, but the above might apply to him as well.

And, I believe Richard Dunn had the same philosophy.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. John Lennon

G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
steve s
Shed dweller
Posts: 2610
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: east yorks

#38 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by steve s »

My own test of the power supply is a couple of flukes, one on the mains to see fluctuations, the other on the dc setting on the ht and look for sag as the music is playing (turn it loud with speakers attached ) and use some heavy rock or something full.
My experence is that a volt or so drop is about the normal with an unregulated supply,
The tube manual is quite like a telephone book. The number of it perfect. It is useful to make it possible to speak with a girl. But we can't see her beautiful face from the telephone number
steve s
Shed dweller
Posts: 2610
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: east yorks

#39 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by steve s »

Paul Barker wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:30 am Cant say, still learning. But the Ps audio Paul was holding up a little product, whether a dac a preamp a phono stage I dont recall. He may have said. But I recall what he said about power rating. The torroid was ten times over rated and each time he increased it, it was better.


Same applies in his world to power amps and speakers. That is, in his presently being worked on design, the active midrange and active woofer have 700 watts each I think he said. So we have a mountain to climb if we want to play with them boys.
Over the years I've heard quite a few systems designed on this type of philosophy, especially at the wam shows, there's been very few that have impressed me Paul.

I fondly remember some your stories when we 1st met about your visits
to a few 'experts'
The tube manual is quite like a telephone book. The number of it perfect. It is useful to make it possible to speak with a girl. But we can't see her beautiful face from the telephone number
User avatar
Paul Barker
Social Sevices have been notified
Posts: 8247
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:42 pm

#40 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by Paul Barker »

Nick wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:43 am You do know he is trying to sell something don't you?
Like. otoh you do know he is a friend of Nelson Pass.

Theres always pros and cons but dont throw the baby out with the bath water.
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe." – Albert Einstein
User avatar
Paul Barker
Social Sevices have been notified
Posts: 8247
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:42 pm

#41 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by Paul Barker »

pre65 wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:25 am
Nick wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:43 am You do know he is trying to sell something don't you?
Russ Andrews always used to (may still ?) use a much bigger transformer (in va) than you might think, but the above might apply to him as well.

And, I believe Richard Dunn had the same philosophy.
Fekc me you quoted Richard Dunn in a positive light!
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe." – Albert Einstein
User avatar
Paul Barker
Social Sevices have been notified
Posts: 8247
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:42 pm

#42 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by Paul Barker »

steve s wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:56 am
Paul Barker wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:30 am Cant say, still learning. But the Ps audio Paul was holding up a little product, whether a dac a preamp a phono stage I dont recall. He may have said. But I recall what he said about power rating. The torroid was ten times over rated and each time he increased it, it was better.


Same applies in his world to power amps and speakers. That is, in his presently being worked on design, the active midrange and active woofer have 700 watts each I think he said. So we have a mountain to climb if we want to play with them boys.
Over the years I've heard quite a few systems designed on this type of philosophy, especially at the wam shows, there's been very few that have impressed me Paul.

I fondly remember some your stories when we 1st met about your visits
to a few 'experts'
I forgot about that. But this hypothesis needs testing. Ive never tested it as I had a log in my eye when I was complaining about splinters, so I missed it.
"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe." – Albert Einstein
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 14370
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#43 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by Nick »

Paul Barker wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:08 am
Nick wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:43 am You do know he is trying to sell something don't you?
Like. otoh you do know he is a friend of Nelson Pass.
Yes, not sure what that adds though. But note that Nelson keeps two set of views, First Watt, for just about non commercial stuff (though they still sell them) and Pass Labs for full on commercial. There are not that many things in common between the two.

And I am a friend of Dave Brooks, so what is your point again?
Little known fact, coherent thought can destructively interfere with itself leaving no thought at all, that’s why I prefer incoherent thought.
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 20210
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex

#44 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by pre65 »

Paul Barker wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:09 am
pre65 wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 10:25 am
Nick wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:43 am You do know he is trying to sell something don't you?
Russ Andrews always used to (may still ?) use a much bigger transformer (in va) than you might think, but the above might apply to him as well.

And, I believe Richard Dunn had the same philosophy.
Fekc me you quoted Richard Dunn in a positive light!
Indeed. :)

The man himself was OK, it was his on-line persona that bugged me.
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. John Lennon

G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 14370
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#45 Re: Raymond Bates 1949 Direct Coupled 6V6

Post by Nick »

Nick wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:18 am
Paul Barker wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:08 am
Nick wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:43 am You do know he is trying to sell something don't you?
Like. otoh you do know he is a friend of Nelson Pass.
Yes, not sure what that adds though. But note that Nelson keeps two set of views, First Watt, for just about non commercial stuff (though they still sell them) and Pass Labs for full on commercial. There are not that many things in common between the two.

And I am a friend of Dave Brooks, so what is your point again?
I think the point I was making was that I feel its important to consider the source and potential validity of any information from whatever source, especially if it agrees with what you already think as we are less likely to be critical of such.
Little known fact, coherent thought can destructively interfere with itself leaving no thought at all, that’s why I prefer incoherent thought.
Post Reply