[Bob H.]

I noticed an interesting variation on the KISS amp power supply. It is
what appears to be a bridge rectifier, using two ss diodes and two
halves of a GZ37.
What is the purpose of mixing these components? I would think
switching spikes would still be present from the diodes. Is the theory
that the tube halves control these, and provide tube rectifier
characteristics?

If so, it would be a handy way of utilizing lower voltage transformers,
like the Japanese xformers intended for a voltage doubler, without
having to deal with a tube bridge (for those of us who choose tube
rectification).

I'm sure that this will start a vigorous string of how SS is superior
to tube rectification, or whatever. The purpose of this post is to
better understand the INTENT of this circuit.

[Eeyore]

"Bob H." wrote:

I noticed an interesting variation on the KISS amp power supply. It is
what appears to be a bridge rectifier, using two ss diodes and two
halves of a GZ37.
What is the purpose of mixing these components? I would think
switching spikes would still be present from the diodes. Is the theory
that the tube halves control these, and provide tube rectifier
characteristics?

If so, it would be a handy way of utilizing lower voltage transformers,
like the Japanese xformers intended for a voltage doubler, without
having to deal with a tube bridge (for those of us who choose tube
rectification).

I'm sure that this will start a vigorous string of how SS is superior
to tube rectification, or whatever. The purpose of this post is to
better understand the INTENT of this circuit.

You're imagining of course that it ever had a meaningful intent other than toob
voodoo.

Graham

[Bob H.]

Now that all that irrelevant chatter is out of the way, has anyone else
had any experience with hybrid bridge rectifiers, using a tube for half
of the bridge, attached to the B+ side?
Another benefit: a slow startup rectifier tube would also produce slow
startup B+.

Bob H.
Posting TUBE stuff on rec.audio.TUBES.


Bret Ludwig wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
snip

You're imagining of course that it ever had a meaningful intent other than toob
voodoo.


Every time people start going off on tube rectifiers, I always cut the
discussion short by asking them to show me the spikes. Show me the
spikes on a scope. Is that unreasonable?

If it were a problem, it could be best fought by shielding and the use
of a proper RF choke and bypassing of the power supply. But it simply
isn't a problem in tube equipment because the currents aren't that
high. It can be in large solid state amps. The fix? Shielding
,bypassing and a good RF choke, usually ferrite core.

[Andre Jute]

Bob H. wrote:
Now that all that irrelevant chatter is out of the way, has anyone else
had any experience with hybrid bridge rectifiers, using a tube for half
of the bridge, attached to the B+ side?
Another benefit: a slow startup rectifier tube would also produce slow
startup B+.

Bob H.
Posting TUBE stuff on rec.audio.TUBES.

I have years of experience and collected data. The KISS Amp is my
circuit.

Yesterday you were cruising my site to pick up tips to improve the
incompetent, overpriced loudspeaker you built several years after I
published a better design for a fifth of the price, at the same time
abusing me. Today you're trying to lift a power supply detail from my
designs. Looks like you just about live on my netsite. I don't remember
a single word of thanks from you; in fact all I remember is nasty
little bully-boy sniping and abuse.

Why should I cast more pearls before swine like you, Hedberg? To
discover an immoral, ill-bred lout like you perving over my netsite
makes me feel soiled.

As far as I'm concerned, an ingrate like you can wallow in his own
ignorant slime forever.

Andre Jute
Those who try to lunch on me always find the bill more than they can
afford

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
snip

You're imagining of course that it ever had a meaningful intent other than toob
voodoo.


Every time people start going off on tube rectifiers, I always cut the
discussion short by asking them to show me the spikes. Show me the
spikes on a scope. Is that unreasonable?

If it were a problem, it could be best fought by shielding and the use
of a proper RF choke and bypassing of the power supply. But it simply
isn't a problem in tube equipment because the currents aren't that
high. It can be in large solid state amps. The fix? Shielding
,bypassing and a good RF choke, usually ferrite core.

[Bob H.]

I was just cruising out of curiousity, since you post the sites for
people to cruise to.
I've checked your pages maybe three times in five years, when it was
up.


The speaker is great. It's also a knock-off without any honorable
mention of where you got the data.

The circuit is nothing special. The rectifier was interesting, and I
had no negative comments about it. Indeed, the comments were positive,
and I'm wondering who has tried it (guaranteed others have, both
recently and not so recently).

Please don't try to tell me that anything in your designs hasn't been
done before.

Judging by your comments on how long I live on your web pages, I guess
the message is don't dare go there. Point well taken. I'll make sure
the message remains alive.

Your buddy (well, not really)
Bob H.

Andre Jute wrote:
Bob H. wrote:
Now that all that irrelevant chatter is out of the way, has anyone else
had any experience with hybrid bridge rectifiers, using a tube for half
of the bridge, attached to the B+ side?
Another benefit: a slow startup rectifier tube would also produce slow
startup B+.

Bob H.
Posting TUBE stuff on rec.audio.TUBES.

I have years of experience and collected data. The KISS Amp is my
circuit.

Yesterday you were cruising my site to pick up tips to improve the
incompetent, overpriced loudspeaker you built several years after I
published a better design for a fifth of the price, at the same time
abusing me. Today you're trying to lift a power supply detail from my
designs. Looks like you just about live on my netsite. I don't remember
a single word of thanks from you; in fact all I remember is nasty
little bully-boy sniping and abuse.

Why should I cast more pearls before swine like you, Hedberg? To
discover an immoral, ill-bred lout like you perving over my netsite
makes me feel soiled.

As far as I'm concerned, an ingrate like you can wallow in his own
ignorant slime forever.

Andre Jute
Those who try to lunch on me always find the bill more than they can
afford

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
snip

You're imagining of course that it ever had a meaningful intent other than toob
voodoo.


Every time people start going off on tube rectifiers, I always cut the
discussion short by asking them to show me the spikes. Show me the
spikes on a scope. Is that unreasonable?

If it were a problem, it could be best fought by shielding and the use
of a proper RF choke and bypassing of the power supply. But it simply
isn't a problem in tube equipment because the currents aren't that
high. It can be in large solid state amps. The fix? Shielding
,bypassing and a good RF choke, usually ferrite core.

[Ian Iveson]

Bob wrote:

I noticed an interesting variation on the KISS amp power supply. It is
what appears to be a bridge rectifier, using two ss diodes and two
halves of a GZ37.
What is the purpose of mixing these components? I would think
switching spikes would still be present from the diodes. Is the theory
that the tube halves control these, and provide tube rectifier
characteristics?

If so, it would be a handy way of utilizing lower voltage transformers,
like the Japanese xformers intended for a voltage doubler, without
having to deal with a tube bridge (for those of us who choose tube
rectification).

I'm sure that this will start a vigorous string of how SS is superior
to tube rectification, or whatever. The purpose of this post is to
better understand the INTENT of this circuit.


This kind of rectifier arrangement been discussed here several times. A bridge
rectifier with 4 valves is a waste: you don't need them in series if their role
is to regulate current.

If you've got a power transformer without a centre tap left over from a previous
failed project, and it happens to fit your new lash-up with this arrangement,
then it offers most of the advantage (as some may see it) of valve
rectification, including soft switching.

I have read that torroidal power transformers are not generally well suited to
full-wave rectification with two diodes and a centre tap. Perhaps someone would
like to explain why.

cheers, Ian

[Andre Jute]

Bob H. wrote:
I was just cruising out of curiousity, since you post the sites for
people to cruise to.
I've checked your pages maybe three times in five years, when it was
up.


The speaker is great. It's also a knock-off without any honorable
mention of where you got the data.

You're a fool, Bubba. I never heard of John Wykoff or his Hammer Super
12 before I designed and built my speaker The Impresario.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg
The 1999 copyright date on my blueprint merely dates the tidy final
drawing itself and protects it from garage vermin trying to build
copies for profit; I published my dimensions and constructional details
within a week of receiving the driver samples, probably in 1997, which
was around the time I designed my SEntry trioded EL34 student's amp
which The Impresario was created to partner. Many others designed
around the Eminence Beta 12 LT (the speaker Wykoff "tweaked" and then
sold for five times the guitar store price together with plans) and
also put their designs in the public domain; many of these were pretty
close to my design but I didn't accuse them of theft. In fact, Thorsten
Loesch and I congratulated each other on arriving at almost the same
result. That's the difference between knowing something of the
imperatives of good loudspeaker design and being an ignoramus like you.

The Thiele-Small data came from Eminence and they are adequately
thanked for the data and the samples by publishing my design for any
DIYer to build a pair. The proportions came from the Parthenon and that
source is also acknowledged in the word "Phi" and the formula written
right there on the blueprint, not that I would expect an undereducated,
zero-culture American redneck like you to understand the reference. The
positioning of the braces come from general loudspeaker engineering
learned from Gilbert Briggs's vintage book, which I have often
recommended, the positioning of the tweeters from the desire to keep
the apparent point source that is the fundamental specification of my
speaker, and so on ad infinitum, everything rationally integrated. I do
the job right from the start. "Tweaks" and suchlike kludgery I leave to
the hangers-on of audio like you.

If the Wykoff Hammer Super 12 for five times the money of my free
design is as incompetent as you claim (in your desire to "tweak it
right" by incorporating my Impresario's superior construction and
bracing details into the Hammer Super 12) then you really wasted your
money. But, like I said, you're a right bubba of a fool.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review



The circuit is nothing special. The rectifier was interesting, and I
had no negative comments about it. Indeed, the comments were positive,
and I'm wondering who has tried it (guaranteed others have, both
recently and not so recently).

Please don't try to tell me that anything in your designs hasn't been
done before.

Judging by your comments on how long I live on your web pages, I guess
the message is don't dare go there. Point well taken. I'll make sure
the message remains alive.

Your buddy (well, not really)
Bob H.

Andre Jute wrote:
Bob H. wrote:
Now that all that irrelevant chatter is out of the way, has anyone else
had any experience with hybrid bridge rectifiers, using a tube for half
of the bridge, attached to the B+ side?
Another benefit: a slow startup rectifier tube would also produce slow
startup B+.

Bob H.
Posting TUBE stuff on rec.audio.TUBES.

I have years of experience and collected data. The KISS Amp is my
circuit.

Yesterday you were cruising my site to pick up tips to improve the
incompetent, overpriced loudspeaker you built several years after I
published a better design for a fifth of the price, at the same time
abusing me. Today you're trying to lift a power supply detail from my
designs. Looks like you just about live on my netsite. I don't remember
a single word of thanks from you; in fact all I remember is nasty
little bully-boy sniping and abuse.

Why should I cast more pearls before swine like you, Hedberg? To
discover an immoral, ill-bred lout like you perving over my netsite
makes me feel soiled.

As far as I'm concerned, an ingrate like you can wallow in his own
ignorant slime forever.

Andre Jute
Those who try to lunch on me always find the bill more than they can
afford

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
snip

You're imagining of course that it ever had a meaningful intent other than toob
voodoo.


Every time people start going off on tube rectifiers, I always cut the
discussion short by asking them to show me the spikes. Show me the
spikes on a scope. Is that unreasonable?

If it were a problem, it could be best fought by shielding and the use
of a proper RF choke and bypassing of the power supply. But it simply
isn't a problem in tube equipment because the currents aren't that
high. It can be in large solid state amps. The fix? Shielding
,bypassing and a good RF choke, usually ferrite core.

[Bob H.]

Ahhh, a flash of the old Andre. What a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Bob H.



Andre Jute wrote:
Bob H. wrote:
I was just cruising out of curiousity, since you post the sites for
people to cruise to.
I've checked your pages maybe three times in five years, when it was
up.


The speaker is great. It's also a knock-off without any honorable
mention of where you got the data.

You're a fool, Bubba. I never heard of John Wykoff or his Hammer Super
12 before I designed and built my speaker The Impresario.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg
The 1999 copyright date on my blueprint merely dates the tidy final
drawing itself and protects it from garage vermin trying to build
copies for profit; I published my dimensions and constructional details
within a week of receiving the driver samples, probably in 1997, which
was around the time I designed my SEntry trioded EL34 student's amp
which The Impresario was created to partner. Many others designed
around the Eminence Beta 12 LT (the speaker Wykoff "tweaked" and then
sold for five times the guitar store price together with plans) and
also put their designs in the public domain; many of these were pretty
close to my design but I didn't accuse them of theft. In fact, Thorsten
Loesch and I congratulated each other on arriving at almost the same
result. That's the difference between knowing something of the
imperatives of good loudspeaker design and being an ignoramus like you.

The Thiele-Small data came from Eminence and they are adequately
thanked for the data and the samples by publishing my design for any
DIYer to build a pair. The proportions came from the Parthenon and that
source is also acknowledged in the word "Phi" and the formula written
right there on the blueprint, not that I would expect an undereducated,
zero-culture American redneck like you to understand the reference. The
positioning of the braces come from general loudspeaker engineering
learned from Gilbert Briggs's vintage book, which I have often
recommended, the positioning of the tweeters from the desire to keep
the apparent point source that is the fundamental specification of my
speaker, and so on ad infinitum, everything rationally integrated. I do
the job right from the start. "Tweaks" and suchlike kludgery I leave to
the hangers-on of audio like you.

If the Wykoff Hammer Super 12 for five times the money of my free
design is as incompetent as you claim (in your desire to "tweak it
right" by incorporating my Impresario's superior construction and
bracing details into the Hammer Super 12) then you really wasted your
money. But, like I said, you're a right bubba of a fool.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review



The circuit is nothing special. The rectifier was interesting, and I
had no negative comments about it. Indeed, the comments were positive,
and I'm wondering who has tried it (guaranteed others have, both
recently and not so recently).

Please don't try to tell me that anything in your designs hasn't been
done before.

Judging by your comments on how long I live on your web pages, I guess
the message is don't dare go there. Point well taken. I'll make sure
the message remains alive.

Your buddy (well, not really)
Bob H.

Andre Jute wrote:
Bob H. wrote:
Now that all that irrelevant chatter is out of the way, has anyone else
had any experience with hybrid bridge rectifiers, using a tube for half
of the bridge, attached to the B+ side?
Another benefit: a slow startup rectifier tube would also produce slow
startup B+.

Bob H.
Posting TUBE stuff on rec.audio.TUBES.

I have years of experience and collected data. The KISS Amp is my
circuit.

Yesterday you were cruising my site to pick up tips to improve the
incompetent, overpriced loudspeaker you built several years after I
published a better design for a fifth of the price, at the same time
abusing me. Today you're trying to lift a power supply detail from my
designs. Looks like you just about live on my netsite. I don't remember
a single word of thanks from you; in fact all I remember is nasty
little bully-boy sniping and abuse.

Why should I cast more pearls before swine like you, Hedberg? To
discover an immoral, ill-bred lout like you perving over my netsite
makes me feel soiled.

As far as I'm concerned, an ingrate like you can wallow in his own
ignorant slime forever.

Andre Jute
Those who try to lunch on me always find the bill more than they can
afford

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
snip

You're imagining of course that it ever had a meaningful intent other than toob
voodoo.


Every time people start going off on tube rectifiers, I always cut the
discussion short by asking them to show me the spikes. Show me the
spikes on a scope. Is that unreasonable?

If it were a problem, it could be best fought by shielding and the use
of a proper RF choke and bypassing of the power supply. But it simply
isn't a problem in tube equipment because the currents aren't that
high. It can be in large solid state amps. The fix? Shielding
,bypassing and a good RF choke, usually ferrite core.

[Andre Jute]

Bob H. wrote:
Ahhh, a flash of the old Andre. What a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Bob H.

Not only are you a dub-bubba, Hedberg, you're a liar, you're an ingrate
and you lack grace.

I have already demonstrated, below, that you are a moron beyond belief
who can't even get a URL right, who doesn't do his homework, who
immorally runs around accusing his betters of theft and dishonesty on
no evidence whatsoever except your little "feelings" of like and
dislike.

You're an ingrate for wanting to use the fruits of my mind without
having the decency to thank me for making them freely available; quite
the contrary, even while using the fruits of my mind to gimmick your
incompetent Hammer Super 12s right, you were accusing me of stealing
the design from a dead man, without the slightest shred of proof. You
make me sick at the stomach, Hedberg.

Then, when your lies are exposed by a barrage of facts that you cannot
argue with, you don't offer an apology, you have another dumb smartarse
comment to make:
I guess I'm just a blithering idiot. Uhuh huh huh.
Bob H.

You don't know how right you a You *are* a blathering idiot.

If your parents are still alive, I bet they're ashamed of what they
have bred. You, Bob Hedberg, are a liar without breeding or grace. You
are slime,.

Andre Jute


Andre Jute wrote:
Bob H. wrote:
I was just cruising out of curiousity, since you post the sites for
people to cruise to.
I've checked your pages maybe three times in five years, when it was
up.


The speaker is great. It's also a knock-off without any honorable
mention of where you got the data.

You're a fool, Bubba. I never heard of John Wykoff or his Hammer Super
12 before I designed and built my speaker The Impresario.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...Impresario.jpg
The 1999 copyright date on my blueprint merely dates the tidy final
drawing itself and protects it from garage vermin trying to build
copies for profit; I published my dimensions and constructional details
within a week of receiving the driver samples, probably in 1997, which
was around the time I designed my SEntry trioded EL34 student's amp
which The Impresario was created to partner. Many others designed
around the Eminence Beta 12 LT (the speaker Wykoff "tweaked" and then
sold for five times the guitar store price together with plans) and
also put their designs in the public domain; many of these were pretty
close to my design but I didn't accuse them of theft. In fact, Thorsten
Loesch and I congratulated each other on arriving at almost the same
result. That's the difference between knowing something of the
imperatives of good loudspeaker design and being an ignoramus like you.

The Thiele-Small data came from Eminence and they are adequately
thanked for the data and the samples by publishing my design for any
DIYer to build a pair. The proportions came from the Parthenon and that
source is also acknowledged in the word "Phi" and the formula written
right there on the blueprint, not that I would expect an undereducated,
zero-culture American redneck like you to understand the reference. The
positioning of the braces come from general loudspeaker engineering
learned from Gilbert Briggs's vintage book, which I have often
recommended, the positioning of the tweeters from the desire to keep
the apparent point source that is the fundamental specification of my
speaker, and so on ad infinitum, everything rationally integrated. I do
the job right from the start. "Tweaks" and suchlike kludgery I leave to
the hangers-on of audio like you.

If the Wykoff Hammer Super 12 for five times the money of my free
design is as incompetent as you claim (in your desire to "tweak it
right" by incorporating my Impresario's superior construction and
bracing details into the Hammer Super 12) then you really wasted your
money. But, like I said, you're a right bubba of a fool.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review



The circuit is nothing special. The rectifier was interesting, and I
had no negative comments about it. Indeed, the comments were positive,
and I'm wondering who has tried it (guaranteed others have, both
recently and not so recently).

Please don't try to tell me that anything in your designs hasn't been
done before.

Judging by your comments on how long I live on your web pages, I guess
the message is don't dare go there. Point well taken. I'll make sure
the message remains alive.

Your buddy (well, not really)
Bob H.

Andre Jute wrote:
Bob H. wrote:
Now that all that irrelevant chatter is out of the way, has anyone else
had any experience with hybrid bridge rectifiers, using a tube for half
of the bridge, attached to the B+ side?
Another benefit: a slow startup rectifier tube would also produce slow
startup B+.

Bob H.
Posting TUBE stuff on rec.audio.TUBES.

I have years of experience and collected data. The KISS Amp is my
circuit.

Yesterday you were cruising my site to pick up tips to improve the
incompetent, overpriced loudspeaker you built several years after I
published a better design for a fifth of the price, at the same time
abusing me. Today you're trying to lift a power supply detail from my
designs. Looks like you just about live on my netsite. I don't remember
a single word of thanks from you; in fact all I remember is nasty
little bully-boy sniping and abuse.

Why should I cast more pearls before swine like you, Hedberg? To
discover an immoral, ill-bred lout like you perving over my netsite
makes me feel soiled.

As far as I'm concerned, an ingrate like you can wallow in his own
ignorant slime forever.

Andre Jute
Those who try to lunch on me always find the bill more than they can
afford

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
snip

You're imagining of course that it ever had a meaningful intent other than toob
voodoo.


Every time people start going off on tube rectifiers, I always cut the
discussion short by asking them to show me the spikes. Show me the
spikes on a scope. Is that unreasonable?

If it were a problem, it could be best fought by shielding and the use
of a proper RF choke and bypassing of the power supply. But it simply
isn't a problem in tube equipment because the currents aren't that
high. It can be in large solid state amps. The fix? Shielding
,bypassing and a good RF choke, usually ferrite core.

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Not only are you a dub-bubba, Hedberg, you're a liar, you're an ingrate
and you lack grace.

Not only are you a top-posting effwit but you smell. ;-p

Graham

[Bob H.]

Thanks, Ian

I should have done a usenet search first. It seems this is a well
known option and public knowledge.
Heres a post from 1997, with a diagram no less.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...74170883f441a3

re/
Bob H.


This kind of rectifier arrangement been discussed here several times. A bridge
rectifier with 4 valves is a waste: you don't need them in series if their role
is to regulate current.

If you've got a power transformer without a centre tap left over from a previous
failed project, and it happens to fit your new lash-up with this arrangement,
then it offers most of the advantage (as some may see it) of valve
rectification, including soft switching.

I have read that torroidal power transformers are not generally well suited to
full-wave rectification with two diodes and a centre tap. Perhaps someone would
like to explain why.

cheers, Ian

[Ian Iveson]

Bob wrote

I should have done a usenet search first. It seems this is a well
known option and public knowledge.
Heres a post from 1997, with a diagram no less.

An ss bridge with series resistance to give the same effective
regulation will switch more sharply, but the current peaks delivered
into the first cap will be lower and wider, it seems to me. So less
switching noise but more hum, perhaps, with higher harmonic content?
And don't valve rectifiers make their own noise too?

But what would I know. I don't think I've ever even *seen* a valve
rectifier.

Perhaps their regulation is euphonic?

cheers, Ian

[Andre Jute]

Ian Iveson wrote:
But what would I know. I don't think I've ever even *seen* a valve
rectifier.

I love it: the blind leading the terminally stupid.

Between them Dumb and Dumber haven't even discovered the name of the
rectifier topology.

Andre Jute
Creator of The KISS Amp and The Impresario loudspeaker

Ian Iveson wrote:
Bob wrote

I should have done a usenet search first. It seems this is a well
known option and public knowledge.
Heres a post from 1997, with a diagram no less.

An ss bridge with series resistance to give the same effective
regulation will switch more sharply, but the current peaks delivered
into the first cap will be lower and wider, it seems to me. So less
switching noise but more hum, perhaps, with higher harmonic content?
And don't valve rectifiers make their own noise too?

But what would I know. I don't think I've ever even *seen* a valve
rectifier.
Perhaps their regulation is euphonic?

cheers, Ian

[Bob H.]

I suspect you'd see the standard bridge ripple out of the rectifier,
with each voltage peak an addition of the voltage drop across one
section of the tube and one diode. Since the drop across the diode is
a fraction of a volt, the 20-something drop of the tube would produce
most voltage drop reduction.
Any switching noise from the diode should be isolated by the tube half,
since tubes don't reverse bias, and I believe switch noise is a result
of the diode switching between conduction and non-conduction.
A big benefit of this circuit, other than utilizing a power tranny
without a center tap, is that if a slow warmup tube is used, it would
isolate the diode's portion of the B+ from the rest of the tube circuit
untill all the tubes warm up.

The filter caps take care of the hum.

Anyway, thanks for the reply
Bob H.



Ian Iveson wrote:
Bob wrote

I should have done a usenet search first. It seems this is a well
known option and public knowledge.
Heres a post from 1997, with a diagram no less.

An ss bridge with series resistance to give the same effective
regulation will switch more sharply, but the current peaks delivered
into the first cap will be lower and wider, it seems to me. So less
switching noise but more hum, perhaps, with higher harmonic content?
And don't valve rectifiers make their own noise too?

But what would I know. I don't think I've ever even *seen* a valve
rectifier.

Perhaps their regulation is euphonic?

cheers, Ian

[Ian Iveson]

Bob said:

The filter caps take care of the hum.

I see. No need to worry about hum then.

A big benefit of this circuit, other than utilizing a power tranny
without a center tap, is that if a slow warmup tube is used, it
would
isolate the diode's portion of the B+ from the rest of the tube
circuit
untill all the tubes warm up.

Personally speaking, I think anyone who uses valve rectification for
the purpose of HT switch-on delay is barking.

cheers, Ian

"Bob H." wrote in message
oups.com...
I suspect you'd see the standard bridge ripple out of the rectifier,
with each voltage peak an addition of the voltage drop across one
section of the tube and one diode. Since the drop across the diode
is
a fraction of a volt, the 20-something drop of the tube would
produce
most voltage drop reduction.
Any switching noise from the diode should be isolated by the tube
half,
since tubes don't reverse bias, and I believe switch noise is a
result
of the diode switching between conduction and non-conduction.
Anyway, thanks for the reply
Bob H.



Ian Iveson wrote:
Bob wrote

I should have done a usenet search first. It seems this is a
well
known option and public knowledge.
Heres a post from 1997, with a diagram no less.

An ss bridge with series resistance to give the same effective
regulation will switch more sharply, but the current peaks
delivered
into the first cap will be lower and wider, it seems to me. So less
switching noise but more hum, perhaps, with higher harmonic
content?
And don't valve rectifiers make their own noise too?

But what would I know. I don't think I've ever even *seen* a valve
rectifier.

Perhaps their regulation is euphonic?

cheers, Ian

[Bob H.]

I'd agree that the switching thing is minor if existant. I have just
ended up liking tube rectification after experimenting with a plug in
ss rectifier and several types of 5ar4's on an amp one day. Since the
amp had fixed bias, I was able to readjust bias, though it only changed
minimally. Signal tube bias remained pretty steady.
I did hear differences, though not necessarily bad ones, just
differences. After some hours of swapping and listening, I ended up
with the tube rectifier. SS would be much easier, believe me, but I
follow my instincts, so tube rectifier it is.
DIY rules.

RE/
Bob H.

Ian Iveson wrote:
Bob said:

The filter caps take care of the hum.

I see. No need to worry about hum then.

A big benefit of this circuit, other than utilizing a power tranny
without a center tap, is that if a slow warmup tube is used, it
would
isolate the diode's portion of the B+ from the rest of the tube
circuit
untill all the tubes warm up.

Personally speaking, I think anyone who uses valve rectification for
the purpose of HT switch-on delay is barking.

cheers, Ian

"Bob H." wrote in message
oups.com...
I suspect you'd see the standard bridge ripple out of the rectifier,
with each voltage peak an addition of the voltage drop across one
section of the tube and one diode. Since the drop across the diode
is
a fraction of a volt, the 20-something drop of the tube would
produce
most voltage drop reduction.
Any switching noise from the diode should be isolated by the tube
half,
since tubes don't reverse bias, and I believe switch noise is a
result
of the diode switching between conduction and non-conduction.
Anyway, thanks for the reply
Bob H.



Ian Iveson wrote:
Bob wrote

I should have done a usenet search first. It seems this is a
well
known option and public knowledge.
Heres a post from 1997, with a diagram no less.

An ss bridge with series resistance to give the same effective
regulation will switch more sharply, but the current peaks
delivered
into the first cap will be lower and wider, it seems to me. So less
switching noise but more hum, perhaps, with higher harmonic
content?
And don't valve rectifiers make their own noise too?

But what would I know. I don't think I've ever even *seen* a valve
rectifier.

Perhaps their regulation is euphonic?

cheers, Ian