Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Max current for a 300B is 100mA, max dissipation is 40W.

Patrick Turner replied:
This can mean 400v x 100 mA at idle,

No, no, no, you obstreperous Australian blockhead. The first principle of operating tubes is that you do not operate any two parameters at maximum rating at the same time. Read the WE spec sheets, read Langford-Smith, read Bernstein. Get someone who speaks English to explain to you what it means when the tube designers and makers say, Maximum permitted operating ratings should not be taken as standard operating ratings. Take some time out from posturing on the net as a manufacturer and winder to educate yourself.

Andre Jute
Who permitted this moron Turner to pretend for so long that he knows something?

From http://www.westernelectric.com/spec_sheets/300B.pdf

Maximum plate voltage = 400V
Maximum plate current = 100mA
Maximum plate dissapation = 36W

These are the design centre maximum values, as opposed to absolute maximum values, so they allow a margain for parts tolerance, etc, and the real maximums are probably higher.

From this data alone, it would certainly be possible to run a 300B at 400V and 100mA at idle, with a sacrifice in the life of the tube. Conservative design would mean lowering the plate dissapation below the maximum value, given the fact that 300B's do not exacly grow on trees.

Without any context to Patrick's statement, it's pretty much useless to comment on it. All I can gather from the above quote, is that Patrick knows that P=IV, like any other compotent person interested in electronics. In the amplifiers I have designed for my own personal use, I always tried to push the maximum ratings of everything, in order to get maximum performance for the money. Longevity has never concerned me too much, because by the time something actually wears out, I've probably moved on to something new
anyhow.

If I ever get around to building something using the 'sacred' 300B, I would hold back from pushing the limits, simply because a 300B amplifier is built for reasons other than getting the most bang for the buck.

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Max current for a 300B is 100mA, max dissipation is 40W.

Patrick Turner replied:
This can mean 400v x 100 mA at idle,

No, no, no, you obstreperous Australian blockhead. The first principle of operating tubes is that you do not operate any two parameters at maximum rating at the same time. Read the WE spec sheets, read Langford-Smith, read Bernstein. Get someone who speaks English to explain to you what it means when the tube designers and makers say, Maximum permitted operating ratings should not be taken as standard operating ratings. Take some time out from posturing on the net as a manufacturer and winder to educate yourself.

I said it could mean 400v x 100mA.
It don't have to mean that's the only setting for the 300B.

But if the idle conditions were 400V at 100mA,
and the load was 3.0 k, peak swing is 240v,
and po would be 9.6 watts.
This will give the minimum thd for that load.
If the tube is operated at 400v x 80 mA,
the Pda is 32 watts, the same load could be used,
and the same load line appears lower on the data curves,
and 9.2 watts is available, but at slightly
higher thd.
The running of the tube at the full power rating does not convey
great benefits except possibly shorter tube life.

But in practice, the loads will vary around this centre value,
if that's the load we chose for the centre value.
with a 2k load, the thd rapidly has begun to increase,
but 9 watts is still available.
At 5 k, the po max is 6.2 watts, but thd will be 1/2 the
that of the 3k load.


One can draw a dotted line on the data curves to show where
32 watts Pd occurs for different values of Ea and Ia.
One could also try for 40 watts ( in practice, a little high,) or for 30 watts.
The load line can then be drawn as a tangent under the curve one gets
of the Pd line.

The speaker reflects a whole range of impedances to the tube,
perhaps between 2k and 20k, so one has to choose where the best compromise
lies, and so if you have a 6 ohm nominal speaker,
then aranging the tube to give the maximum unclipped po
into 4 ohms is probably about right.
This means the SE maximum power is with a 4 ohm speaker load.
In practice, most of the power is put into loads above 4 ohms,
and the thd will be low, but where the load value does fall to 4 ohms,
or even lower, the amp will still cope OK.
Loads above 4 ohms are better suited to the tube since the reflected higher
value load gives less thd, and still gives a reasonable Po.

Have you not realised that everyone knows there is a choice
involved?

Who runs EL34 at 28 watts?
Who runs KT66 at 25 watts? ( Quad I think...)
I favour less than the max ratings, but I know guys who run them right up.
I wouldn't use 40 watts for a 300B myself, but somewhere between
30 and 40 would do, and I would choose a value of Ea and Ia to suit the expected
range of loads, so that 350v x 100mA would suit lower load values than
400v x 80 mA. As you say, the brand of 300B comes into the picture.

I run the 13E1 at 72 watts in an SE amp, although the rating says 90 watts
is OK. But I found the anodes just started to glow dull red at 90 watts,
which ruins the sound, and I figured because the heaters consume
30 watts, and that heat radiates out from inside the tube to the anode,
then the anode must get rid of part of that 30 watts as well as the anode power heat.
I discovered I had to disregard the makers ratings.
I get a very sweet 22 watts from this tube......

The RDH4, which I have read, doesn't mention a whole bunch of things.
We need to be here to provoke thought and investigation about
tubecraft, and about what isn't widely otherwise available.......


Andre Jute

Who permitted this moron Turner to pretend for so long that he knows something?

Who permitted this moron Jute to parade around obnoxiously?

Where was he when the 300B users needed him?

Complaining instead of doing something constructive.
Damaging people out of spite, instead of just moving on.

Andre Jute shouldn't have a single spare second in his life to waste on
rubbing people up the wrong way, he should devote it to
better explaining the facts as he sees them.

And why does he run 3 different identities here on the one group?
It must be posturizatinism, and it indicates he's mentally short of the full load.

I have no problem discussing the technicals.


Patrick Turner.

Without any context to Patrick's statement, it's pretty much useless to comment on it. All I can gather from the above quote, is that Patrick knows that P=IV, like any other compotent person interested in electronics. In the amplifiers I have designed for my own personal use, I always tried to push the maximum ratings of everything, in order to get maximum performance for the money. Longevity has never concerned me too much, because by the time something actually wears out, I've probably moved on to something new
anyhow.

If I ever get around to building something using the 'sacred' 300B, I would hold back from pushing the limits, simply because a 300B amplifier is built for reasons other than getting the most bang for the buck.

I agree about bang for buck.
See my other post including operating points on 300B.
Depending on the brand of tubes, 32 watts is OK, I have no
argument, but I know guys who drive them at 40 watts.
I never drive any of my tubes in any of my amps right on the
rating, let alone over it.

Patrick Turner.

Patrick Turner wrote:


Without any context to Patrick's statement, it's pretty much useless to comment on it. All I can gather from the above quote, is that Patrick knows that P=IV, like any other compotent person interested in electronics. In the amplifiers I have designed for my own personal use, I always tried to push the maximum ratings of everything, in order to get maximum performance for the money. Longevity has never concerned me too much, because by the time something actually wears out, I've probably moved on to something new
anyhow.

If I ever get around to building something using the 'sacred' 300B, I would hold back from pushing the limits, simply because a 300B amplifier is built for reasons other than getting the most bang for the buck.

I agree about bang for buck.
See my other post including operating points on 300B.
Depending on the brand of tubes, 32 watts is OK, I have no
argument, but I know guys who drive them at 40 watts.
I never drive any of my tubes in any of my amps right on the
rating, let alone over it.

Patrick Turner.

If I was setting up an amplifier for someone else, I'd probably say 80% of maximum is the closest I would get - but that's only to minimize the chance that the person I'm doing the work for comes back to me with a red face and a non working amplifier. My amplifiers all use inexpensive beam tetrodes, and I bias them as close to class A as possible, for maximum performance - dull orange glow is the absolute maximum in my books. If I have to deal with a blown tube once in a while, who really cares.. it's only tubes, I can
replace them.

I think Andre's point was that just because the 300B can take 100mA and can take 400V dosen't mean it can do both at the same time without exceeding the power dissapation rating of the tube. I really don't get how this conflicts with what you said though.

Max Holubitsky wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:


Without any context to Patrick's statement, it's pretty much useless to comment on it. All I can gather from the above quote, is that Patrick knows that P=IV, like any other compotent person interested in electronics. In the amplifiers I have designed for my own personal use, I always tried to push the maximum ratings of everything, in order to get maximum performance for the money. Longevity has never concerned me too much, because by the time something actually wears out, I've probably moved on to something new
anyhow.

If I ever get around to building something using the 'sacred' 300B, I would hold back from pushing the limits, simply because a 300B amplifier is built for reasons other than getting the most bang for the buck.

I agree about bang for buck.
See my other post including operating points on 300B.
Depending on the brand of tubes, 32 watts is OK, I have no
argument, but I know guys who drive them at 40 watts.
I never drive any of my tubes in any of my amps right on the
rating, let alone over it.

Patrick Turner.

If I was setting up an amplifier for someone else, I'd probably say 80% of maximum is the closest I would get - but that's only to minimize the chance that the person I'm doing the work for comes back to me with a red face and a non working amplifier. My amplifiers all use inexpensive beam tetrodes, and I bias them as close to class A as possible, for maximum performance - dull orange glow is the absolute maximum in my books. If I have to deal with a blown tube once in a while, who really cares.. it's only tubes, I can
replace them.

I myself don't run SE tubes right up to the max rating.

In class A PP amps, I don't go up to the rating either, although I know a guy who runs his
KT88 at 45 watts. I don't go over 33 watts.
If I want more class A power, I just use more tubes, and run them
at say 30 watts, and use a higher value RL per tube.
so 5 k a-a for a quad of large octals is better for me.


I think Andre's point was that just because the 300B can take 100mA and can take 400V dosen't mean it can do both at the same time without exceeding the power dissapation rating of the tube. I really don't get how this conflicts with what you said though.

The 300B cathode current shouldn't exceed an average of 100mA.
so it may instantaneously rise above and below 100mA,
but for most of its life, it spends its time sitting at where you set it,
so 80 mA obviously won't wear out the cathode as much as 100mA will.
Temperature affects life expectancy, so if the Ea x Ia is high enough,
you have a real hot tube.
Perhaps one could set up a 300B at Ea = 300v, and if the Ia = 100mA,
then Pd = 30 watts, and it'd run a lot cooler than at Ea = 400v,
and it might be the lower temp which would extend the life,
not the actual value of av Ik.

One could have Ea = 500v, and Ia = 70 mA,
but this isn't a wonderful way to suit a high value RL,
because the grid voltage required to cut off the tube current
becomes excessive, ie, the gM of the tube reduces as the plate current
is cut off, and the bias voltage is high.

But for a class AB PP amp, perhaps Ea = 500v could be OK.

Its a funny thing, but one rarely ever sees PP amps using 300B.
I did hear a hong kong made kit, called a Vincent, in about 1996
which sounded very healthy, and it made 18 watts,
but perhaps more could be wrung out of a pair.
I remember reading a batch of 13 Sound Practices magazines,
and they were full of SET stuff, except for one lone brave soul
who presented a PP amp.
I like either genre.

Patrick Turner.

Max Holubitsky wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

[...]


If I was setting up an amplifier for someone else, I'd probably say 80% of maximum is the closest I would get - but that's only to minimize the chance that the person I'm doing the work for comes back to me with a red face and a non working amplifier. My amplifiers all use inexpensive beam tetrodes, and I bias them as close to class A as possible, for maximum performance - dull orange glow is the absolute maximum in my books. If I have to deal with a blown tube once in a while, who really cares.. it's only tubes, I can
replace them.

Makes good sense. The 80% figure for maximum dissipation is a pretty
good one, I think. But that can vary somewhat depending on whether the
maximum is "design center", "absolute maximum" or marketing (e.g. 7027A
vs. 6L6GC).

I think Andre's point was that just because the 300B can take 100mA and can take 400V dosen't mean it can do both at the same time without exceeding the power dissapation rating of the tube. I really don't get how this conflicts with what you said though.

I didn't see the original post of course, so can only address this based
on your reply. It can be a revelation to neophytes that maximum voltage
and current are not simultaneous quantities. It's really pretty obvious,
though, since maximum dissipation is never merely the product of maximum
voltage and maximum current.

It's often more clear with transistor/ IC spec sheets, because they
often draw a safe-area curve; something that's rarely seen on a set of
tube curves.

It's easy enough to add in, however, especially with triodes, where
there's generally only one voltage/current pair. Draw a series of points
representing maximum power dissipation at various voltages and currents.
It will produce a hyperbolic curve. Truncate the hyperbola at the
maximum voltage and current ratings. The area under that curve is the
"safe area". Here's a rather crappy ASCII representation (requires
fixed-width font):

I

^
|
|..., Imax
| :
| :
| : Pmax
| .. Vmax
| safe ....,
| area :
| :
+--------------------- V

Under normal conditions your load line should lie within that safe area.

Exception 1: class AB or B with the operating point low on the right
side, can tolerate loadlines that cross the safe area. But even that
would usually violate the "80% rule", if you subscribe to it.

Exception 2: In class A, the ends of the load line can exceed the
maximum I and V ratings, and still remain totally in the safe area
during operation. (Look at the maximum/minimum grid voltages to
determine this.)

Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects, Vacuum Tubes & other stuff: |
| http://www.dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

Patrick Turner wrote:

Max Holubitsky wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:


Without any context to Patrick's statement, it's pretty much useless to comment on it. All I can gather from the above quote, is that Patrick knows that P=IV, like any other compotent person interested in electronics. In the amplifiers I have designed for my own personal use, I always tried to push the maximum ratings of everything, in order to get maximum performance for the money. Longevity has never concerned me too much, because by the time something actually wears out, I've probably moved on to something new
anyhow.

If I ever get around to building something using the 'sacred' 300B, I would hold back from pushing the limits, simply because a 300B amplifier is built for reasons other than getting the most bang for the buck.

I agree about bang for buck.
See my other post including operating points on 300B.
Depending on the brand of tubes, 32 watts is OK, I have no
argument, but I know guys who drive them at 40 watts.
I never drive any of my tubes in any of my amps right on the
rating, let alone over it.

Patrick Turner.

If I was setting up an amplifier for someone else, I'd probably say 80% of maximum is the closest I would get - but that's only to minimize the chance that the person I'm doing the work for comes back to me with a red face and a non working amplifier. My amplifiers all use inexpensive beam tetrodes, and I bias them as close to class A as possible, for maximum performance - dull orange glow is the absolute maximum in my books. If I have to deal with a blown tube once in a while, who really cares.. it's only tubes, I can
replace them.

I myself don't run SE tubes right up to the max rating.

In class A PP amps, I don't go up to the rating either, although I know a guy who runs his
KT88 at 45 watts. I don't go over 33 watts.
If I want more class A power, I just use more tubes, and run them
at say 30 watts, and use a higher value RL per tube.
so 5 k a-a for a quad of large octals is better for me.

I think Andre's point was that just because the 300B can take 100mA and can take 400V dosen't mean it can do both at the same time without exceeding the power dissapation rating of the tube. I really don't get how this conflicts with what you said though.

The 300B cathode current shouldn't exceed an average of 100mA.
so it may instantaneously rise above and below 100mA,
but for most of its life, it spends its time sitting at where you set it,
so 80 mA obviously won't wear out the cathode as much as 100mA will.
Temperature affects life expectancy, so if the Ea x Ia is high enough,
you have a real hot tube.
Perhaps one could set up a 300B at Ea = 300v, and if the Ia = 100mA,
then Pd = 30 watts, and it'd run a lot cooler than at Ea = 400v,
and it might be the lower temp which would extend the life,
not the actual value of av Ik.

One could have Ea = 500v, and Ia = 70 mA,
but this isn't a wonderful way to suit a high value RL,
because the grid voltage required to cut off the tube current
becomes excessive, ie, the gM of the tube reduces as the plate current
is cut off, and the bias voltage is high.

But for a class AB PP amp, perhaps Ea = 500v could be OK.

Its a funny thing, but one rarely ever sees PP amps using 300B.
I did hear a hong kong made kit, called a Vincent, in about 1996
which sounded very healthy, and it made 18 watts,
but perhaps more could be wrung out of a pair.
I remember reading a batch of 13 Sound Practices magazines,
and they were full of SET stuff, except for one lone brave soul
who presented a PP amp.
I like either genre.

Patrick Turner.

Hi-Fi world's "world audio design" made a PP 300B amplifier kit all though the 90s. It used an interstage transformer, and everything. I belive VAC also made a few PP 300B amplifiers. To be perfectly honest, I have never made a single ended amplifier, aside from a couple of 6V6 designs, and fooling around with 50L6's, 50EH5's, 35L6's, etc. When I built those, I was younger and didn't really know much about maximum power dissapation, so I just followed RCA's suggested operating characteristics.

The reason I pushed the tubes in the P-P amplifiers I designed, was because I was in university at the time, and I had very limited finances... I figured it was neat to null the distortion with an old Heathkit THD meter by adjusting the bias, while observing the output wave form on my 'scope, and buring a hole in the desk with a giant power resistor. If the tubes had to go in one year, so what, at least I was getting the best possible performance from what was sitting in front of me. Now that I actually have some money,
I'd probably do differently.

I think it would be rather neat to hear a triode P-P amplifier... especially one with just enough NFB to get the damping factor nice and high. Maybe some day once I have done the other things I have to do I'll get around to building one.

Hey Fred!

That ASCII text thing was pretty cool. It's amazing how difficult it is to get that stuff looking good! Anyhow, I can't argue with anything in your message. The 80% figure I gave, is simply a general rule of thumb I use for most of the electrical design and specification I do, for any type of electrical equipment. e.g. voltage ratings of capacitors, power ratings of resistors, ampacity of wire, circuit breaker ratings, etc. There's certainly practical exceptions to it (as you cited), but it's never hurt me to follow it
either.

Max

I run the 13E1 at 72 watts in an SE amp, although the rating says 90 watts
is OK. But I found the anodes just started to glow dull red at 90 watts,
which ruins the sound, and I figured because the heaters consume
30 watts, and that heat radiates out from inside the tube to the anode,
then the anode must get rid of part of that 30 watts as well as the anode power heat.
I discovered I had to disregard the makers ratings.
I get a very sweet 22 watts from this tube......

This is an interesting comment - how come you relate a glowing anode to bad sound? I know I have read that some tubes are designed to run with a dull red anode, especially larger transmitting style tubes - although I don't know if this is one of them. This sounds like one monster of an amplifier, very cool! I imagine it's a nice amp to keep going in the winter, long after the music is over - just to keep the abient temperature up! (well, I've done that before - then again it tends to get awfully cold here in the
winter!)

NOW TURNER CLAIMS
I said it could mean 400v x 100mA.
It dont have to mean thats the only setting for the 300B.

Are you a crude idiot, Turner, or are you trying some clumsy deceit? Here, let kindly old Uncle Andre take you by the hand and spell it out for you on the blackboard:

100mA x 400V equals 40W

Thats two, yes two, parameters at maximum, current and dissipation. There are rules, Turner, and people like you are well advised to keep to them. At the very least, refrain from telling newbies to break rules that real engineers made for a very good reason.

Mr. Jute,

I believe that the rule is you can use the tube at any or all of it's maximum ratings, provided that no maximum rating is exeeded. For example with the 300B, maximums a

Pa = 36W
Va = 400V
Ia = 100mA

So if one were to use 400V, and 100mA, the Pa = 40W, which is above a maximum rating for the tube. My comprehension of what Patrick wrote, is that he knows of people who use the tube at 40W without issue. In other words, the tube is overbuilt enough that it will not fail if its ratings are pushed slightly. This knowledge is valuable to other experimenters who may wish to know how far they can push things before disaster will occur.

While it is not conservative design practice to push ratings like this, hobbiests who understand what they are sticking their hands into, and who have the ability to repair their own equipment (as is obviously the case with Patrick) can push the ratings a little bit, because the marginal increase in performance may be more than worth the decrease in system reliability and life expectancy. If one was interested strictly in reliability, the easy solution would be to buy a Crown PA amplifier, and leave the tubes to someone else.

regards,

Max

P.S. Just out of interest, what configuration is your hi-fi system set up in currently? I remember you having posted some interesting things in the past, but things change, and my memory is not great, of posts from many years ago. I remeber you having some B&O speakers, and 300B amplifiers, but beyond that, I can't remember much. I'm particularly interested in what sources you favour - vinyl? CD? soemthing else?

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:40:29 -0800, the highly esteemed Jon Yaeger
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

* * * snip all of Andre's virulent, pointless logorrhea * * *


Some people say that bad publicity is good for artists and the like, or
that bad publicity is better than none at all.

After all this brouhaha I'm actually tempted to go on Amazon and buy one
of Andre's unreviewed books.

I'm really curious now to find out:

1. Is page 7 of one of his books the same as page 25 & 49, like it is
with his posts on R.A.T.?

2. Is his tone always condescending to his subject matter and/or
characters?

3. Is his grasp of reality or presentation of fiction truly bizarre as
well?

4. Can the man count above 280?

Has anyone on R.A.T. actually bought one of his tomes? Would I be better
off spending my money on some used TV rectifier HV tubes on eBay instead?

Well, instead of the HV rectifiers, you could spend your money on this
Ebay auction:

http://tinyurl.com/tms5

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

* * * snip all of Andre's virulent, pointless logorrhea * * *


Some people say that bad publicity is good for artists and the like, or that
bad publicity is better than none at all.

After all this brouhaha I'm actually tempted to go on Amazon and buy one of
Andre's unreviewed books.

I'm really curious now to find out:

1. Is page 7 of one of his books the same as page 25 & 49, like it is with
his posts on R.A.T.?

2. Is his tone always condescending to his subject matter and/or
characters?

3. Is his grasp of reality or presentation of fiction truly bizarre as
well?

4. Can the man count above 280?

Has anyone on R.A.T. actually bought one of his tomes? Would I be better
off spending my money on some used TV rectifier HV tubes on eBay instead?

Dear Readers of the Worldwide Web,

Below we have another truly demented post from Andre Jute.
Its pointless for me to address the technical content aspects yet again,
and its time to point out other issues.

He has already made his point days ago, about the setting up of a 300B.
He repeats it here ad nauseum, and conveniently ignores much of what I said,
in order to persue his terrorist activities.
He has arranged the text in ways it wasn't originally presented, ie, juxteposed
out of context, to paint a horror story.

But now he goes on assasinate my good character, referring to me in the most
insulting manner he can dream up, and defames my business, which removes any
respect I could have for his technical knowledge, which seems lacking,
because I maybe it seems I was able to say a heck of a lot more about 300B set up
than he was.
There is only so much one can say about a 300B, and once done,
its just obsessive repetition.

I am sure the fellow who originally asked about the 300B set up,
Mr Chris Parkin, is now well informed of 300B matters.

Andre seems unwilling to share his knowledge unless its presented in a way
to deliberately entrap or provoke me or everyone else.

He makes a complete arse and fool out of himself.

He states his great knowledge, and at one point says how I have not read the
RDH and that he will now spell it out to me, "on the blackboard"
but then does not proceed to do so, but continues on to
simply repeat himself, rather than repeat what's in the RDH4,
and call me all sorts of bull**** things, and he does not give any references to back himself up.
What pages in RDH4 was he referring to, exactly?
I don't think he knows.

This man acuses me of dull and unoriginal designs, etc.etc,etc.

Unfortunately for Andre's argument, people pay well for them, and its because they sound
so much better than a lot of other gear that I remain, and have not been
withered away, in spite of a hard world full of competition, and market BS.


And I ask again the questions Andre is loathe to answer:
Where is his website with great info?
Where is any sign that he makes fine and original peices of audio gear?
Where is the evidence that he is an original thinker?
Just because he knows a slight amount about 300B,
does this make the "man" a tubecraft expert?
Where is the friendly easy to approach manner?
Why is he so arrogant and imperial in his manner?

Is Andre Jute unique? --Well, we can all answer that one!!

Why does he have to resort to character assasination to make it appear
to win an argument?
Does he not realise that a loss is indicated?

Is it not true he is just a very sore and disgruntled loser?

Of course he must set himself up via some anonymous
address, and make sure he is untouchable, from where he terrorizes
out of spite, not even for a worthy cause.
He places himself out of reach of the real world, which he obviously could not bear
to face, and thus shows he has little courage.

Patrick Turner.







Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:

Educating Patrick Turner

Patrick Turner ) wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Max current for a 300B is 100mA, max dissipation is 40W.

Patrick Turner replied:
This can mean 400v x 100 mA at idle,

ANDRE JUTE REPLIED:
No, no, no, you obstreperous Australian blockhead. The first principle of operating tubes is that you do not operate any two parameters at maximum rating at the same time. Read the WE spec sheets, read Langford-Smith, read Bernstein. Get someone who speaks English to explain to you what it means when the tube designers and makers say, Maximum permitted operating ratings should not be taken as standard operating ratings. Take some time out from posturing on the net as a manufacturer and winder to educate yourself.

NOW TURNER CLAIMS
I said it could mean 400v x 100mA.
It dont have to mean thats the only setting for the 300B.

Are you a crude idiot, Turner, or are you trying some clumsy deceit? Here, let kindly old Uncle Andre take you by the hand and spell it out for you on the blackboard:

100mA x 400V equals 40W

Thats two, yes two, parameters at maximum, current and dissipation. There are rules, Turner, and people like you are well advised to keep to them. At the very least, refrain from telling newbies to break rules that real engineers made for a very good reason.

The rest of Turners slitherings to escape his gross errors is snipped. Those who want to read the mans slimy attempts at disingenuous deceit by misdirection will find his full post below. Im more interested in this bit of hubris from the Canberra Brickie:

The RDH4, which I have read, doesnt mention a whole bunch of things.

You obviously havent read it too well, Turner, because it says clearly, several times, that you dont approach two tube maxima at once, never mind several as you advocate.

The mans insolence gets worse:

We need to be here to provoke thought and investigation about
tubecraft, and about what isnt widely otherwise available.......

First of all, dont include me in your we -, Turner. I have nothing in common with you. Secondly, you build grindingly dull designs that take a sledgehammer to a delicate nut. You dont have the brains for originality, you dont have the right attitude, and youre too much of a jerk-up to acquire either. The chances of you coming up with something new and worthwhile are a hundred million to one.

As for what isnt otherwise widely available what would that be? Your uncouth manner, magnified out of a brickies club by the internet? Youre a yob and you make me ashamed to be an Australian.

Who permitted this moron Turner to pretend for so long that he knows something?

Next the foolish little man exposes his hairy arse some mo

Who permitted this moron Jute to parade around obnoxiously?

You called me, Turner, 280 messages to none, over 11 months. Im here only because you called me, and now you cant handle me.

Where was he when the 300B users needed him?

When you misinformed a newbie about 300B, I appeared and straightened out your ignorance, as in this post and the one to Max.

Complaining instead of doing something constructive.

Eh? I am most certainly doing something constructive. I am ridding RAT of a cancer on its fertility and imagination.

Damaging people out of spite, instead of just moving on.

280 to zero. And now you whine that I should forgive and forget. Youre a psychopath, Turner. The key characteristic of a psychopath is that he is so self-centred that he is totally incapable of connecting the consequences of his actions to the actions themselves. You had your chance to apologize, and you sneered it out of court. Now Im going to kick your butt all over the Pacific, and when that pond is contaminated by your blood and **** and snot, why, the Indian Ocean is right next door, and I owe it a blood sacrifice for he monsoon I once escaped.

I love this bit from the Commissar for Ten Minutes of RAT, Patrick Turner:

Andre Jute shouldnt have a single spare second in his life to waste on rubbing people up the wrong way, he should devote it to
better explaining the facts as he sees them.

280 to zero, and counting, and this fascist creep wants to tell me what I should do instead of kicking his jabbering butt when he misinforms people about electronics.

And why does he run 3 different identities here on the one group?
It must be posturizatinism, and it indicates hes mentally short of the full load.

Hello Doubleya from Canberrah. posturizatinism Hee-hee, ho-hum, what a moronic jerk. Only three? ****, I thought the anonymizer was supposed to choose randomly from several dozen. The idiot Turner thinks I chose those names that indicate which anonymizer was last in the queue!

Now for the crowning hypocrisy from slacklips Patrick Turner, he of the jabbering butt:

I have no problem discussing the technicals.
Patrick Turner.

280 messages of personal abuse, with zero technical content. Over 11 months. Without apology. You are slime, Turner, and worse, you are hypocritical slime. It would be better for you if you were merely stupid slime, because I might hesitate to hit the mentally handicapped.

But you are anyway quite incapable of discussing technical matters at any level beyond the most basic of crudely conceived jack-hammer amps, as Ive demonstrated with the most casual ease in this post and the one to Max in this thread. Anything beyond that, and youre dangerously ignorant.

**** me! This hairy-legged fishwife Turner deliberately attacks the reputation of someone who for a living deals in reputations, and stokes up his gang to do the same, and expects to escape scot-free because hes popular with his wretched little claque of mutual masturbators. How stupidly brash do you have to be deliberately to put yourself in the face of a professional polemicist in a polemicists dream medium?

Andre Jute
6. Thicker than two short planks.
5. Dumb and dumber.
4. Certifiably subnormal.
3. Terminally moronic.
2. Patrick Turner of Turner Audio, Canberra.
1. The guy who buys an amp from him.

Patrick Turner ) wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Max current for a 300B is 100mA, max dissipation is 40W.

Patrick Turner replied:
This can mean 400v x 100 mA at idle,

No, no, no, you obstreperous Australian blockhead. The first principle of operating tubes is that you do not operate any two parameters at maximum rating at the same time. Read the WE spec sheets, read Langford-Smith, read Bernstein. Get someone who speaks English to explain to you what it means when the tube designers and makers say, Maximum permitted operating ratings should not be taken as standard operating ratings. Take some time out from posturing on the net as a manufacturer and winder to educate yourself.

I said it could mean 400v x 100mA.
It dont have to mean thats the only setting for the 300B.

But if the idle conditions were 400V at 100mA,
and the load was 3.0 k, peak swing is 240v,
and po would be 9.6 watts.
This will give the minimum thd for that load.
If the tube is operated at 400v x 80 mA,
the Pda is 32 watts, the same load could be used,
and the same load line appears lower on the data curves,
and 9.2 watts is available, but at slightly
higher thd.
The running of the tube at the full power rating does not convey
great benefits except possibly shorter tube life.

But in practice, the loads will vary around this centre value,
if thats the load we chose for the centre value.
with a 2k load, the thd rapidly has begun to increase,
but 9 watts is still available.
At 5 k, the po max is 6.2 watts, but thd will be 1/2 the
that of the 3k load.

One can draw a dotted line on the data curves to show where
32 watts Pd occurs for different values of Ea and Ia.
One could also try for 40 watts ( in practice, a little high,) or for 30 watts.
The load line can then be drawn as a tangent under the curve one gets
of the Pd line.

The speaker reflects a whole range of impedances to the tube,
perhaps between 2k and 20k, so one has to choose where the best compromise
lies, and so if you have a 6 ohm nominal speaker,
then aranging the tube to give the maximum unclipped po
into 4 ohms is probably about right.
This means the SE maximum power is with a 4 ohm speaker load.
In practice, most of the power is put into loads above 4 ohms,
and the thd will be low, but where the load value does fall to 4 ohms,
or even lower, the amp will still cope OK.
Loads above 4 ohms are better suited to the tube since the reflected higher
value load gives less thd, and still gives a reasonable Po.

Have you not realised that everyone knows there is a choice
involved?

Who runs EL34 at 28 watts?
Who runs KT66 at 25 watts? ( Quad I think...)
I favour less than the max ratings, but I know guys who run them right up.
I wouldnt use 40 watts for a 300B myself, but somewhere between
30 and 40 would do, and I would choose a value of Ea and Ia to suit the expected
range of loads, so that 350v x 100mA would suit lower load values than
400v x 80 mA. As you say, the brand of 300B comes into the picture.

I run the 13E1 at 72 watts in an SE amp, although the rating says 90 watts
is OK. But I found the anodes just started to glow dull red at 90 watts,
which ruins the sound, and I figured because the heaters consume
30 watts, and that heat radiates out from inside the tube to the anode,
then the anode must get rid of part of that 30 watts as well as the anode power heat.
I discovered I had to disregard the makers ratings.
I get a very sweet 22 watts from this tube......

The RDH4, which I have read, doesnt mention a whole bunch of things.
We need to be here to provoke thought and investigation about
tubecraft, and about what isnt widely otherwise available.......

Andre Jute

Who permitted this moron Turner to pretend for so long that he knows something?

Who permitted this moron Jute to parade around obnoxiously?

Where was he when the 300B users needed him?

Complaining instead of doing something constructive.
Damaging people out of spite, instead of just moving on.

Andre Jute shouldnt have a single spare second in his life to waste on
rubbing people up the wrong way, he should devote it to
better explaining the facts as he sees them.

And why does he run 3 different identities here on the one group?
It must be posturizatinism, and it indicates hes mentally short of the full load.

I have no problem discussing the technicals.

Patrick Turner.

Max Holubitsky wrote:

I run the 13E1 at 72 watts in an SE amp, although the rating says 90 watts
is OK. But I found the anodes just started to glow dull red at 90 watts,
which ruins the sound, and I figured because the heaters consume
30 watts, and that heat radiates out from inside the tube to the anode,
then the anode must get rid of part of that 30 watts as well as the anode power heat.
I discovered I had to disregard the makers ratings.
I get a very sweet 22 watts from this tube......

This is an interesting comment - how come you relate a glowing anode to bad sound?

Well, the red anodes I have seen sound bad to me.
I think its a secondary emission effect.

About 18 mths ago, I had to service an old pair of Quad II amps.

The guy did not want to fork out for new KT66.

The amps hadn't been serviced for 30 years,
and all the KT66 were running with much different anode currents,
and one had a dull red hot spot, and in this amp of the pair,
the sound was dreadful. Lots of audible distortion.
I replaced all the critical coupling caps and bias resistors, but still
the red spot stayed, due to excessive anode current, and probably a slightly
deformed screen grid wire alignement.
The amp had one tube running with 90 mA, and the other with 40mA for years and years,
evn though 70 mA was a better figure of current.

I removed the 270 ohm single cathode R and bypass cap,
grounded the CFB winding CT, and placed in a pair of
separate RC cathode networks between the ends of the CFB winding
and the cathodes, so that Ia then settled
to about 60 mA in each tube.
The red spot dissappeared, and the musicality and clarity returned.
I don't know how long the tortured old tubes would carry on for,
but some folks are determined to NOT do a retube.

I know I have read that some tubes are designed to run with a dull red anode, especially larger transmitting style tubes - although I don't know if this is one of them.

I don't think the 13E1 benefits with a red anode.

This sounds like one monster of an amplifier, very cool! I imagine it's a nice amp to keep going in the winter, long after the music is over - just to keep the abient temperature up! (well, I've done that before - then again it tends to get awfully cold here in the
winter!)

The info about the 13E1 amps is at
http://www.turneraudio.com.au/htmlwe...22monobloc.htm

They each draw only about 135 watts from the mains, so
you'd have to huddle close to get warm.
My PC and a couple of light bulbs do more to keep me warm.

The 300 watters I made might keep you warmer, they
draw about 500 watts each.

Patrick Turner.

Hi Patrick,

I have been posting to rec.audio.tubes since late 1997, and have seen people come and go, and get stuck in endless loops of boring arguments. The approach I take is to reply only to the technical content, and not to anything else, unless it's particularly interesting. In the context of newsgroups, I come here to share and acquire knowledge - anything that isn't of a technical or at least friendly off topic nature is of no interest to me, because it does not contribute to either the growth and development of my own knowledge, or to the knowledge of others.

My personal opinion is that modesty is one of the key character traits of any truly intelligent individual. You shouldn't let yourself be bothered by Andre's "attempt to assassinate your good character", because your designs, and the knowledge you have added to the group do not need defense. I have seen your website, schematics, and photos of your completed amplifiers, and to my eyes it appears to be the work of someone with knowledge and talent. Anyone with a background in tube equipment, and a reasonable knowledge of electronics can verify quite readily
that you know what you are talking about. If for some reason you make a mistake, I am sure that there are plenty of people here who have the ability to correct you in a polite and diplomatic manner, and then get on with life.

I have seen Andre's posts for many years, and my opinion is that he is a very political animal, but at the same time, underneath it all, he does have an interest in tube amplifiers, and hi-fi in general, which means he is not out of place in posting here. I would rather watch paint dry than hear about boring personal attacks and conspiracy theories, but I for one am curious to find out more about his interest in audio, and where it has taken him. I think audio is a very interesting hobby, and the more people who are interested in it, the better off we all
are.

Max




Patrick Turner wrote:

Dear Readers of the Worldwide Web,

Below we have another truly demented post from Andre Jute.
Its pointless for me to address the technical content aspects yet again,
and its time to point out other issues.

He has already made his point days ago, about the setting up of a 300B.
He repeats it here ad nauseum, and conveniently ignores much of what I said,
in order to persue his terrorist activities.
He has arranged the text in ways it wasn't originally presented, ie, juxteposed
out of context, to paint a horror story.

But now he goes on assasinate my good character, referring to me in the most
insulting manner he can dream up, and defames my business, which removes any
respect I could have for his technical knowledge, which seems lacking,
because I maybe it seems I was able to say a heck of a lot more about 300B set up
than he was.
There is only so much one can say about a 300B, and once done,
its just obsessive repetition.

I am sure the fellow who originally asked about the 300B set up,
Mr Chris Parkin, is now well informed of 300B matters.

Andre seems unwilling to share his knowledge unless its presented in a way
to deliberately entrap or provoke me or everyone else.

He makes a complete arse and fool out of himself.

He states his great knowledge, and at one point says how I have not read the
RDH and that he will now spell it out to me, "on the blackboard"
but then does not proceed to do so, but continues on to
simply repeat himself, rather than repeat what's in the RDH4,
and call me all sorts of bull**** things, and he does not give any references to back himself up.
What pages in RDH4 was he referring to, exactly?
I don't think he knows.

This man acuses me of dull and unoriginal designs, etc.etc,etc.

Unfortunately for Andre's argument, people pay well for them, and its because they sound
so much better than a lot of other gear that I remain, and have not been
withered away, in spite of a hard world full of competition, and market BS.

And I ask again the questions Andre is loathe to answer:
Where is his website with great info?
Where is any sign that he makes fine and original peices of audio gear?
Where is the evidence that he is an original thinker?
Just because he knows a slight amount about 300B,
does this make the "man" a tubecraft expert?
Where is the friendly easy to approach manner?
Why is he so arrogant and imperial in his manner?

Is Andre Jute unique? --Well, we can all answer that one!!

Why does he have to resort to character assasination to make it appear
to win an argument?
Does he not realise that a loss is indicated?

Is it not true he is just a very sore and disgruntled loser?

Of course he must set himself up via some anonymous
address, and make sure he is untouchable, from where he terrorizes
out of spite, not even for a worthy cause.
He places himself out of reach of the real world, which he obviously could not bear
to face, and thus shows he has little courage.

Patrick Turner.

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:

Educating Patrick Turner

Patrick Turner ) wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Max current for a 300B is 100mA, max dissipation is 40W.

Patrick Turner replied:
This can mean 400v x 100 mA at idle,

ANDRE JUTE REPLIED:
No, no, no, you obstreperous Australian blockhead. The first principle of operating tubes is that you do not operate any two parameters at maximum rating at the same time. Read the WE spec sheets, read Langford-Smith, read Bernstein. Get someone who speaks English to explain to you what it means when the tube designers and makers say, Maximum permitted operating ratings should not be taken as standard operating ratings. Take some time out from posturing on the net as a manufacturer and winder to educate yourself.

NOW TURNER CLAIMS
I said it could mean 400v x 100mA.
It dont have to mean thats the only setting for the 300B.

Are you a crude idiot, Turner, or are you trying some clumsy deceit? Here, let kindly old Uncle Andre take you by the hand and spell it out for you on the blackboard:

100mA x 400V equals 40W

Thats two, yes two, parameters at maximum, current and dissipation. There are rules, Turner, and people like you are well advised to keep to them. At the very least, refrain from telling newbies to break rules that real engineers made for a very good reason.

The rest of Turners slitherings to escape his gross errors is snipped. Those who want to read the mans slimy attempts at disingenuous deceit by misdirection will find his full post below. Im more interested in this bit of hubris from the Canberra Brickie:

The RDH4, which I have read, doesnt mention a whole bunch of things.

You obviously havent read it too well, Turner, because it says clearly, several times, that you dont approach two tube maxima at once, never mind several as you advocate.

The mans insolence gets worse:

We need to be here to provoke thought and investigation about
tubecraft, and about what isnt widely otherwise available.......

First of all, dont include me in your we -, Turner. I have nothing in common with you. Secondly, you build grindingly dull designs that take a sledgehammer to a delicate nut. You dont have the brains for originality, you dont have the right attitude, and youre too much of a jerk-up to acquire either. The chances of you coming up with something new and worthwhile are a hundred million to one.

As for what isnt otherwise widely available what would that be? Your uncouth manner, magnified out of a brickies club by the internet? Youre a yob and you make me ashamed to be an Australian.

Who permitted this moron Turner to pretend for so long that he knows something?

Next the foolish little man exposes his hairy arse some mo

Who permitted this moron Jute to parade around obnoxiously?

You called me, Turner, 280 messages to none, over 11 months. Im here only because you called me, and now you cant handle me.

Where was he when the 300B users needed him?

When you misinformed a newbie about 300B, I appeared and straightened out your ignorance, as in this post and the one to Max.

Complaining instead of doing something constructive.

Eh? I am most certainly doing something constructive. I am ridding RAT of a cancer on its fertility and imagination.

Damaging people out of spite, instead of just moving on.

280 to zero. And now you whine that I should forgive and forget. Youre a psychopath, Turner. The key characteristic of a psychopath is that he is so self-centred that he is totally incapable of connecting the consequences of his actions to the actions themselves. You had your chance to apologize, and you sneered it out of court. Now Im going to kick your butt all over the Pacific, and when that pond is contaminated by your blood and **** and snot, why, the Indian Ocean is right next door, and I owe it a blood sacrifice for he monsoon I once escaped.

I love this bit from the Commissar for Ten Minutes of RAT, Patrick Turner:

Andre Jute shouldnt have a single spare second in his life to waste on rubbing people up the wrong way, he should devote it to
better explaining the facts as he sees them.

280 to zero, and counting, and this fascist creep wants to tell me what I should do instead of kicking his jabbering butt when he misinforms people about electronics.

And why does he run 3 different identities here on the one group?
It must be posturizatinism, and it indicates hes mentally short of the full load.

Hello Doubleya from Canberrah. posturizatinism Hee-hee, ho-hum, what a moronic jerk. Only three? ****, I thought the anonymizer was supposed to choose randomly from several dozen. The idiot Turner thinks I chose those names that indicate which anonymizer was last in the queue!

Now for the crowning hypocrisy from slacklips Patrick Turner, he of the jabbering butt:

I have no problem discussing the technicals.
Patrick Turner.

280 messages of personal abuse, with zero technical content. Over 11 months. Without apology. You are slime, Turner, and worse, you are hypocritical slime. It would be better for you if you were merely stupid slime, because I might hesitate to hit the mentally handicapped.

But you are anyway quite incapable of discussing technical matters at any level beyond the most basic of crudely conceived jack-hammer amps, as Ive demonstrated with the most casual ease in this post and the one to Max in this thread. Anything beyond that, and youre dangerously ignorant.

**** me! This hairy-legged fishwife Turner deliberately attacks the reputation of someone who for a living deals in reputations, and stokes up his gang to do the same, and expects to escape scot-free because hes popular with his wretched little claque of mutual masturbators. How stupidly brash do you have to be deliberately to put yourself in the face of a professional polemicist in a polemicists dream medium?

Andre Jute
6. Thicker than two short planks.
5. Dumb and dumber.
4. Certifiably subnormal.
3. Terminally moronic.
2. Patrick Turner of Turner Audio, Canberra.
1. The guy who buys an amp from him.

Patrick Turner ) wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Max current for a 300B is 100mA, max dissipation is 40W.

Patrick Turner replied:
This can mean 400v x 100 mA at idle,

No, no, no, you obstreperous Australian blockhead. The first principle of operating tubes is that you do not operate any two parameters at maximum rating at the same time. Read the WE spec sheets, read Langford-Smith, read Bernstein. Get someone who speaks English to explain to you what it means when the tube designers and makers say, Maximum permitted operating ratings should not be taken as standard operating ratings. Take some time out from posturing on the net as a manufacturer and winder to educate yourself.

I said it could mean 400v x 100mA.
It dont have to mean thats the only setting for the 300B.

But if the idle conditions were 400V at 100mA,
and the load was 3.0 k, peak swing is 240v,
and po would be 9.6 watts.
This will give the minimum thd for that load.
If the tube is operated at 400v x 80 mA,
the Pda is 32 watts, the same load could be used,
and the same load line appears lower on the data curves,
and 9.2 watts is available, but at slightly
higher thd.
The running of the tube at the full power rating does not convey
great benefits except possibly shorter tube life.

But in practice, the loads will vary around this centre value,
if thats the load we chose for the centre value.
with a 2k load, the thd rapidly has begun to increase,
but 9 watts is still available.
At 5 k, the po max is 6.2 watts, but thd will be 1/2 the
that of the 3k load.

One can draw a dotted line on the data curves to show where
32 watts Pd occurs for different values of Ea and Ia.
One could also try for 40 watts ( in practice, a little high,) or for 30 watts.
The load line can then be drawn as a tangent under the curve one gets
of the Pd line.

The speaker reflects a whole range of impedances to the tube,
perhaps between 2k and 20k, so one has to choose where the best compromise
lies, and so if you have a 6 ohm nominal speaker,
then aranging the tube to give the maximum unclipped po
into 4 ohms is probably about right.
This means the SE maximum power is with a 4 ohm speaker load.
In practice, most of the power is put into loads above 4 ohms,
and the thd will be low, but where the load value does fall to 4 ohms,
or even lower, the amp will still cope OK.
Loads above 4 ohms are better suited to the tube since the reflected higher
value load gives less thd, and still gives a reasonable Po.

Have you not realised that everyone knows there is a choice
involved?

Who runs EL34 at 28 watts?
Who runs KT66 at 25 watts? ( Quad I think...)
I favour less than the max ratings, but I know guys who run them right up.
I wouldnt use 40 watts for a 300B myself, but somewhere between
30 and 40 would do, and I would choose a value of Ea and Ia to suit the expected
range of loads, so that 350v x 100mA would suit lower load values than
400v x 80 mA. As you say, the brand of 300B comes into the picture.

I run the 13E1 at 72 watts in an SE amp, although the rating says 90 watts
is OK. But I found the anodes just started to glow dull red at 90 watts,
which ruins the sound, and I figured because the heaters consume
30 watts, and that heat radiates out from inside the tube to the anode,
then the anode must get rid of part of that 30 watts as well as the anode power heat.
I discovered I had to disregard the makers ratings.
I get a very sweet 22 watts from this tube......

The RDH4, which I have read, doesnt mention a whole bunch of things.
We need to be here to provoke thought and investigation about
tubecraft, and about what isnt widely otherwise available.......

Andre Jute

Who permitted this moron Turner to pretend for so long that he knows something?

Who permitted this moron Jute to parade around obnoxiously?

Where was he when the 300B users needed him?

Complaining instead of doing something constructive.
Damaging people out of spite, instead of just moving on.

Andre Jute shouldnt have a single spare second in his life to waste on
rubbing people up the wrong way, he should devote it to
better explaining the facts as he sees them.

And why does he run 3 different identities here on the one group?
It must be posturizatinism, and it indicates hes mentally short of the full load.

I have no problem discussing the technicals.

Patrick Turner.

Max Holubitsky wrote:

NOW TURNER CLAIMS
I said it could mean 400v x 100mA.
It dont have to mean thats the only setting for the 300B.

Are you a crude idiot, Turner, or are you trying some clumsy deceit? Here, let kindly old Uncle Andre take you by the hand and spell it out for you on the blackboard:

100mA x 400V equals 40W

Thats two, yes two, parameters at maximum, current and dissipation. There are rules, Turner, and people like you are well advised to keep to them. At the very least, refrain from telling newbies to break rules that real engineers made for a very good reason.

Mr. Jute,

I believe that the rule is you can use the tube at any or all of it's maximum ratings, provided that no maximum rating is exeeded. For example with the 300B, maximums a

Pa = 36W
Va = 400V
Ia = 100mA

So if one were to use 400V, and 100mA, the Pa = 40W, which is above a maximum rating for the tube. My comprehension of what Patrick wrote, is that he knows of people who use the tube at 40W without issue. In other words, the tube is overbuilt enough that it will not fail if its ratings are pushed slightly. This knowledge is valuable to other experimenters who may wish to know how far they can push things before disaster will occur.

There are different brands of 300B around.
afaik, the RDH4 says SFA about 300B set up.
Some can be run at 40 watts idle dissipation, which could mean
400v x 100 mA, but in some you might be well advised to run
at say 350v x 85 mA, which is 30 watts.
If we are going to argue about setting up 300B, then
just what brand needs to be spelled out.

Its up to a manufacture to set the operating point to suit the tube chosen,
before he sells his amp.
But where a DIY'er manufactures his own amp, he must give thought
to how he does it, just like a manufacturer.

One can have a look at the WE 300B specs at
http://www.westernelectric.com/300B/specs300Bindex.html

From the data supplied there, it seems 400v x 100mA would
be a wrong working point.
The data curves stop above +475v.
The test conditions used to obtain the data is quoted at 300v.
Plate current is mentioned at 56.2 mA

The PDF version of the we 300B spec sheets is at
http://www.westernelectric.com/spec_sheets/300B.pdf

Here they quote the working point of Ea = 350v,
Ia = 60 mA,
and Po = 8 watts.
Further down the pdf page they say
you get 7 watts from 4k load, at 5% thd, using
350v x 60 mA.
Furhter on down the page they quote the Pd max is 36 watts.

Now 350v x 60 mA gives Pd of only 21 watts.
If 7 watts is available at 5% thd, then this is an efficiency
of 33%. Drawing a load line on the data curves confirms this.

I am left wondering why Andre would suggest 32 watts would be
such a wonderful working point, when it appears you could have
all you wanted from this tube if you had two such tubes in parallel,
when you could then get a very reliable 14 watts, and have only 42 watts
dissipation for the TWO tubes, total!
And since there are two tubes, and low power is used,
the thd would be negligible, so just sit back and enjoy!

I don't think there are many 300B made which would not stand
being set up with 21 watts of Pd, but some will go OK at quite higher power levels.

An example of what I mean is at the emission labs site at
http://www.emissionlabs.com/datasheets/EML300B-XLS.htm
Plate dissipation is 70 watts.

The amps which I saw with 300B set up
for 40 watts have Vaic 300B, made I think around 1995,
but I am not sure.

The emission labs 300B is a direct plug in replacement for other types of 300B.
But it makes them all look like toys.
But plugging in one, or two, will sure cost you a few $$$$.




While it is not conservative design practice to push ratings like this, hobbiests who understand what they are sticking their hands into, and who have the ability to repair their own equipment (as is obviously the case with Patrick) can push the ratings a little bit, because the marginal increase in performance may be more than worth the decrease in system reliability and life expectancy.

I pointed out clearly in a recent posting about 300B,
that setting one up on 40 watts at idle, with 100ma and 400v
would yield about 9.6 watts into 3 k.
But when biased at a lower current, 80 mA,
a very similar po of 9.2 watts, but with more thd, was available.
So setting one up at 40 watts didn't achieve much.
It depends on the brand.
I wouldn't set up a chinese 300B at the rated Pd.

The maximum po of the 300B is nominally 8 watts.
With SE, this doesn't always mean you get no more than 8 watts.
My SEUL amps with 13E1 make 22 watts into 8 ohms, but they
soldier on to make 28 watts into 4 ohms, but the thd is 3 times higher.
Because speaker loads vary so widely, the tube gets to see
a range of loads at different frequencies.
The load giving maximum power might be 3k for a given
Ea and Ia condition, the tube has to power loads
between say 2k and 20k, and far less undistorted power is available
into loads which are distant from that which gives the highest power.
So a 300B amp is really only good for about 6 watts.
An EL34 in pentode is good for 9 watts max, but effectively, its a 6 watt amp.
An EL84 is good for 5 watts max, but 3 watts is about all you can use.

But from what I have seen, ppl don't buy 300B amps, or any low power
SET amps for their power ability. All the guys I know with 300B amps use them
at no more than a watt; two watts gives 93 dB spl from plain 90 dB sensitive speakers.
That, to listeners I know, is bleedin loud! These ppl are NOT deaf,
and hear everything quite well.

The 300B amps, along with many other SE amps do real magic
with the music, but it don't seem limited to 300B,
and I have heard a few other SET amps or multigrid SE amps
which sound magnificent, and they have far higher power ability,
but yet at 1 or 2 watts, still offer the magic, perhaps moreso
than the 300B.


If one was interested strictly in reliability, the easy solution would be to buy a Crown PA amplifier, and leave the tubes to someone else.

My shed gets weighed down with solid state horrors that keep going phut,
and which are difficult to diagnose and fix, especially as the maker
has gone broke years ago, sansui, nakamichi, aiwa, etc......

Don't think a modern amplifier or receiver is going to give you a
20 year maintenance free run.
And in 20 years, who will know how to fix it?
Maybe the parts won't be available.

Patrick Turner.



regards,

Max

P.S. Just out of interest, what configuration is your hi-fi system set up in currently? I remember you having posted some interesting things in the past, but things change, and my memory is not great, of posts from many years ago. I remeber you having some B&O speakers, and 300B amplifiers, but beyond that, I can't remember much. I'm particularly interested in what sources you favour - vinyl? CD? soemthing else?

Jon Yaeger wrote:

* * * snip all of Andre's virulent, pointless logorrhea * * *

Some people say that bad publicity is good for artists and the like, or that
bad publicity is better than none at all.

It is truly unfortunate my name is bandied so much around in subject headers,
I am sure others deserve the attentiom more than I.
I don't weary from such naming, and flaming, since
he who lashes me does so with a wet lettuce leaf.


After all this brouhaha I'm actually tempted to go on Amazon and buy one of
Andre's unreviewed books.

Watch out, AJ keeps well trained crocodiles
at the front of the bookstore he has down there.

I'm really curious now to find out:

1. Is page 7 of one of his books the same as page 25 & 49, like it is with
his posts on R.A.T.?

2. Is his tone always condescending to his subject matter and/or
characters?

3. Is his grasp of reality or presentation of fiction truly bizarre as
well?

4. Can the man count above 280?

Counting untyped muttered curses by users of keyboards world over,
the count must be up to 560,692.


Has anyone on R.A.T. actually bought one of his tomes? Would I be better
off spending my money on some used TV rectifier HV tubes on eBay instead?

You're not allowed to ask awkward questions with AJ,
he just don't like it.

Patrick Turner

Max Holubitsky wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:

Max Holubitsky wrote:

Patrick Turner wrote:


,,,,,


I remember reading a batch of 13 Sound Practices magazines,
and they were full of SET stuff, except for one lone brave soul
who presented a PP amp.
I like either genre.

Patrick Turner.

Hi-Fi world's "world audio design" made a PP 300B amplifier kit all though the 90s. It used an interstage transformer, and everything. I belive VAC also made a few PP 300B amplifiers. To be perfectly honest, I have never made a single ended amplifier, aside from a couple of 6V6 designs, and fooling around with 50L6's, 50EH5's, 35L6's, etc. When I built those, I was younger and didn't really know much about maximum power dissapation, so I just followed RCA's suggested operating characteristics.

The reason I pushed the tubes in the P-P amplifiers I designed, was because I was in university at the time, and I had very limited finances... I figured it was neat to null the distortion with an old Heathkit THD meter by adjusting the bias, while observing the output wave form on my 'scope, and buring a hole in the desk with a giant power resistor. If the tubes had to go in one year, so what, at least I was getting the best possible performance from what was sitting in front of me. Now that I actually have some money,
I'd probably do differently.

I think it would be rather neat to hear a triode P-P amplifier... especially one with just enough NFB to get the damping factor nice and high. Maybe some day once I have done the other things I have to do I'll get around to building one.

The Ra of the 300B is less than 800 ohms.
So Ra-a is 1,600 ohms, or less.

If a pair in PP are mated to a class A 8 ka-a load,
and the OPT has a ratio of 8 k to 8 ohms,
then the output resistance of the amp at the speaker terminals is
plate resistance anode to anode resistance divided by the impedance ratio
of the OPT.
So we get Ro = 1.6 ohms, to which we have to add say 10%
for winding resistance, so Ro = 1.76 ohms.

The use of an 8k to 4 ohm OPT
will give a much lower Ro of around 1 ohm.
The power won't be as high with this OPT if the load is 8 ohms,
but the thd will surely be lower.
NFB applied globally would not be needed.

If one wants a damping factor more than 4, as in the cases above,
then NFB is one method, and 6 dB of it will reduce Ro
to half the figures I quoted, ie, double the DF to 8.
Some say NFB spoils the sound conveyed by such amps,
but I doubt this is universally true.

Patrick Turner.

Errr.. to say nothing of it being posted by Andre... why is this a
thread in the first place? People desperate for arguing again?

Tim

--
"That's for the courts to decide." - Homer Simpson
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Max Holubitsky" wrote in message
...


Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:
Max current for a 300B is 100mA, max dissipation is 40W.

Patrick Turner replied:
This can mean 400v x 100 mA at idle,

No, no, no, you obstreperous Australian blockhead. The first principle
of operating tubes is that you do not operate any two parameters at maximum
rating at the same time. Read the WE spec sheets, read Langford-Smith, read
Bernstein. Get someone who speaks English to explain to you what it means
when the tube designers and makers say, Maximum permitted operating ratings
should not be taken as standard operating ratings. Take some time out from
posturing on the net as a manufacturer and winder to educate yourself.

Andre Jute
Who permitted this moron Turner to pretend for so long that he knows
something?

From http://www.westernelectric.com/spec_sheets/300B.pdf

Maximum plate voltage = 400V
Maximum plate current = 100mA
Maximum plate dissapation = 36W

These are the design centre maximum values, as opposed to absolute maximum
values, so they allow a margain for parts tolerance, etc, and the real
maximums are probably higher.

From this data alone, it would certainly be possible to run a 300B at 400V
and 100mA at idle, with a sacrifice in the life of the tube. Conservative
design would mean lowering the plate dissapation below the maximum value,
given the fact that 300B's do not exacly grow on trees.

Without any context to Patrick's statement, it's pretty much useless to
comment on it. All I can gather from the above quote, is that Patrick knows
that P=IV, like any other compotent person interested in electronics. In the
amplifiers I have designed for my own personal use, I always tried to push
the maximum ratings of everything, in order to get maximum performance for
the money. Longevity has never concerned me too much, because by the time
something actually wears out, I've probably moved on to something new
anyhow.

If I ever get around to building something using the 'sacred' 300B, I
would hold back from pushing the limits, simply because a 300B amplifier is
built for reasons other than getting the most bang for the buck.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:35:01 +1100, the highly esteemed Patrick Turner
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:



Max Holubitsky wrote:

I run the 13E1 at 72 watts in an SE amp, although the rating says 90
watts is OK. But I found the anodes just started to glow dull red at
90 watts, which ruins the sound, and I figured because the heaters
consume 30 watts, and that heat radiates out from inside the tube to
the anode, then the anode must get rid of part of that 30 watts as
well as the anode power heat. I discovered I had to disregard the
makers ratings. I get a very sweet 22 watts from this tube......

This is an interesting comment - how come you relate a glowing anode to
bad sound?

Well, the red anodes I have seen sound bad to me. I think its a secondary
emission effect.

Unlikely. Carbon has very low secondary emission - this is the primary
reason that manufacturers coat screen grids with it. In any event, what
you are probably thinking about is thermionic emission from the red-hot
anode. This can be ruled out as well. The work function of carbon is
approximately the same as tungsten (it varies slightly depending on the
form of the carbon, i.e. amorphous carbon, graphite, diamond, fullerene),
and thus has negligible emission even at bright red temperatures.

A much more likely cause is that, at those power levels, the tube is
operating in a less linear portion of its range, or some other phenomenon
related to the operating point, not the fact that the anode is glowing red.
I have operated SV572s and other graphite-plate (and metal plate) tubes
at red heat and have not had any detrimental effects to the sound.

One other possibility is that the tube structures are liberating adsorbed
gas when the tubes are operated at such temperatures. How much
effect an otherwise unnoticable amount of liberated gas would have I
wouldn't care to speculate....

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

Nomen Nescio wrote:

Educating Patrick Turner
Patrick Turner ) wrote:
Dear Readers of the Worldwide Web,
Below we have another truly demented post from Andre Jute.

And another 500 or maybe a 1000 whinging Turdy Turner lines about how unfair the world is to him. I didnt even glance past the bit where it said:

Read the rest of this message... (411 more lines)

Its just the usual crap about how I treat him no better than he treated me, but apparently he feels he should escape punishment for what he did because hes so popular. I pick a couple of mouthfoaming pieces of ignoramus-speak at random:

removes any respect I could have for his technical knowledge, which seems lacking, because I maybe it seems I was able to say a heck of a lot more about 300B set up than he was.

Run that by me again, Turner.

because I maybe it seems I was able to say

Truly demented, eh? Man, you are foaming at the mouth, and I have only kicked your butt about 10 of the 280 times I am entitled to.

Yes, you do sound demented!
And no, I am not foaming.....
And your kicks in the butt are another arrogant waste of energy.


There is only so much one can say about a 300B, and once done,
its just obsessive repetition.

Like you grinding on mindlessly about your dull brute-force PP amps?

Rubbish, rubbish, and more rubbish.
HTF would you know about anything I have made, you have never owned one.
And you can't have one!



Actually, I havent even started on the subtleties of 300B, and already Turner wants to ban them so that they do not detract attention from his tacky commercial wares. I wonder what his excuse will be for excluding them when I deal in PP EL34.

Garbage.
I have never wanted to ban YOU, or discussions, just to
place a sock in your gob because there is a stream of ****e streaming forth.
You think you have a monopoly on great ideas about tube usage,
but you are just another bloke, and bleedin arogaant stuck up prick
of a bloke at that.

We have no power to stop you posting, so if you think your'e such a smartarse
gift to the world of tubes, you better get on with proving it, rather than wasting time.



Here we go with the Magnequest Mob Method of demanding I justify myself:

So you expect to be believed and respected if you abuse everyone here.




And I ask again the questions Andre is loathe to answer:

Andre isnt loath to answer questions asked by those with the right qualifications to ask them. But you dont have the right qualifications, Turner. You are an insolent lout trying to prove you are as good as I am.

There you go again, making absurd personal assessments, and
the reverse is true, if anyone is insolent, its you, and if I ask simple questions,
and you are so stuck up to answer them, then you only have yourself to blame.

The chip on your shoulder grows bigger every day. Heres a good example, which nicely displays your total ignorance. Turner wants to know about Andre Jute:

Where is his website with great info?

Only a johnnycomeverylatelytotubes like you would need to ask, Turner. Jute on Amps had about 10K pages by me and other qualified parties and was probably the most famous tube audio site in the world, certainly the best visited, with nearly 2.5m visitors a year. It was lauded as

"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom"

by Stuart Perry in Hi-Fi News Record. It was taken down because of the harassment of the Magnequest Scum of my ISP with spurious complaints. When I bought my own ISP the site wasnt put up again because I really didnt see the point of spending 10-15K a year to maintain a massive source of free information for which I received nothing but the sort of constant abuse which tacky people like you hand out to me even in my absence.

You have no website, and no references to back you up.

There is NO NEED to spend 10-15k per year to maintain a site.



Your self-review of your twee commercial netsite as great caused me to sputter coffee onto my new LCD screen, I was laughing so hard.

But you now have NO website, and nothing for anyone,
and an enemy at every corner.
And all you wanna do is run everyone else down and squash them.



Do you really think your twee little commercial site stands up against 10K pages by most of the leading designers of the day? I had more and better transformer information from just one of the winders on my site than on your entire site, and there were several winders who wrote articles for my site. You go on and on about the handful of schematics on your site. I offered a couple of hundred original designs by me and others, entirely free of charge, without any advertising on the pages, with nothing being sold. When you perform a public service of such scope, talk to me again, trader.

Big deal, you have no site now.
You are a fallen man, a has been, a nothing man, while you brag
like an old Roman.
Instead of all the BS, all the angst, all spite, wouldn't it be better to contrive
a new website full of info, instead of wingeing
about how youse was robbed, and trying to rip apart anyone else
who puts up any site of even the slightest proportions, like mine?
I must have told you the same advice last year.
Hows the year been? pretty awful?


And here I could not be bothered to click the button to read another 411 lines of Turner turgidity. Flush it down the toilet. Turner wont be any less longwinded or dull or boring or nasty tomorrow.

Well, many of all those lines were in response to matters you raised.

And if your so keen to be ready to clamp right down on me,
youse better damn well read every single word I type.
Make sure the toilet is working well, I may
cause a blister on your hand and a large water bill.
And the authorities take a dim view of water waste......


Dont make any more mistakes, Turner. Im watching. Meanwhile, would you mind getting to the point earlier in your posts.

NO, only if it suits me.


It really is hard going to read such numbingly disorganized, ungrammatic, English at such inordinate, unnecessary length. You are right, you bore me ****less.

The feeling is mutual Andre, why your whole style of long winded verbal
assaults could lull a herd of cows to sleep.

I bore you because I provide a challenge, and I won't sit by idly while you
try to be a self appointed
fuhrer, king, dictator, or BS merchant.

All of what you accuse others of could be applied to yourself.



Andre Jute

A gentleman is entitled to an opinion - Patrick Turner, abusing me, before he heard mine.

tsk, tsk, ****e, I quiver with shame at this BS.......


Andre Jute isnt entitled to an opinion - - Patrick Turner after his crimes caught up with him

Of course he is entitled, its a pity most opinions are BS,
and BTW, I have never had any convictions, not even in any kangaroo court...



Now watch the little ****** fall into the trap even after I tell him it is there.

Let me see now,
I think I must have counted 293 mindless insults from you in my direction,
and our dreary Andre somehow expects me to back down, **** off,
and shut up.

This is the Net, and you have to cope.

The last 3 lines of yours show to the rest of the world what a small amount
of value you have to offer to it.

You are such an incredibly negative person Andre.
Ever thought of a positive "live and let live" approach?

Try it some time, your brain won't roll out your ear hole if you try.

Patrick Turner.

Greg Pierce wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:35:01 +1100, the highly esteemed Patrick Turner
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:



Max Holubitsky wrote:

I run the 13E1 at 72 watts in an SE amp, although the rating says 90
watts is OK. But I found the anodes just started to glow dull red at
90 watts, which ruins the sound, and I figured because the heaters
consume 30 watts, and that heat radiates out from inside the tube to
the anode, then the anode must get rid of part of that 30 watts as
well as the anode power heat. I discovered I had to disregard the
makers ratings. I get a very sweet 22 watts from this tube......

This is an interesting comment - how come you relate a glowing anode to
bad sound?

Well, the red anodes I have seen sound bad to me. I think its a secondary
emission effect.

Unlikely. Carbon has very low secondary emission - this is the primary
reason that manufacturers coat screen grids with it. In any event, what
you are probably thinking about is thermionic emission from the red-hot
anode.

But with metal anodes?
I didn't think the 13E1 was good sound when it went red.

This can be ruled out as well. The work function of carbon is
approximately the same as tungsten (it varies slightly depending on the
form of the carbon, i.e. amorphous carbon, graphite, diamond, fullerene),
and thus has negligible emission even at bright red temperatures.

A much more likely cause is that, at those power levels, the tube is
operating in a less linear portion of its range, or some other phenomenon
related to the operating point, not the fact that the anode is glowing red.
I have operated SV572s and other graphite-plate (and metal plate) tubes
at red heat and have not had any detrimental effects to the sound.

I definately thought the 13E1 operating at 90 watts Pd was not as good
as it is at 72 watts.
The voltage and current conditions were not near maximum ratings.

One other possibility is that the tube structures are liberating adsorbed
gas when the tubes are operated at such temperatures. How much
effect an otherwise unnoticable amount of liberated gas would have I
wouldn't care to speculate....

The Quad II amps I have serviced with dull red hot spots were doing this even
when biased with original idle currents, so one might assume the electrons
were mainly arriving at the anode all at the one place, causing the hot spot.
When serviced the amp measured OK, and sounded OK.
I had a 6L6 which did the same, after I'd cooked it a bit during some
experiment,
and maybe the screen or grid wire alignment had something to do with it.
But it measured poorly; there was obviously something quite wrong with it.

I don't like glowing metal anodes, or screen wires, in anything.

Patrick Turner.




--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 19:02:22 +1100, the highly esteemed Patrick Turner
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:



Greg Pierce wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:35:01 +1100, the highly esteemed Patrick Turner
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:



Max Holubitsky wrote:

I run the 13E1 at 72 watts in an SE amp, although the rating says
90 watts is OK. But I found the anodes just started to glow dull
red at 90 watts, which ruins the sound, and I figured because the
heaters consume 30 watts, and that heat radiates out from inside
the tube to the anode, then the anode must get rid of part of that
30 watts as well as the anode power heat. I discovered I had to
disregard the makers ratings. I get a very sweet 22 watts from this
tube......

This is an interesting comment - how come you relate a glowing anode
to bad sound?

Well, the red anodes I have seen sound bad to me. I think its a
secondary emission effect.

Unlikely. Carbon has very low secondary emission - this is the primary
reason that manufacturers coat screen grids with it. In any event, what
you are probably thinking about is thermionic emission from the red-hot
anode.

But with metal anodes?
I didn't think the 13E1 was good sound when it went red.

This can be ruled out as well. The work function of carbon is
approximately the same as tungsten (it varies slightly depending on the
form of the carbon, i.e. amorphous carbon, graphite, diamond,
fullerene), and thus has negligible emission even at bright red
temperatures.

A much more likely cause is that, at those power levels, the tube is
operating in a less linear portion of its range, or some other
phenomenon related to the operating point, not the fact that the anode
is glowing red. I have operated SV572s and other graphite-plate (and
metal plate) tubes at red heat and have not had any detrimental effects
to the sound.

I definately thought the 13E1 operating at 90 watts Pd was not as good as
it is at 72 watts.
The voltage and current conditions were not near maximum ratings.

One other possibility is that the tube structures are liberating
adsorbed gas when the tubes are operated at such temperatures. How much
effect an otherwise unnoticable amount of liberated gas would have I
wouldn't care to speculate....

The Quad II amps I have serviced with dull red hot spots were doing this
even when biased with original idle currents, so one might assume the
electrons were mainly arriving at the anode all at the one place, causing
the hot spot. When serviced the amp measured OK, and sounded OK. I had a
6L6 which did the same, after I'd cooked it a bit during some experiment,
and maybe the screen or grid wire alignment had something to do with it.
But it measured poorly; there was obviously something quite wrong with it.

Sounds like a misaligned screen grid to me...


I don't like glowing metal anodes, or screen wires, in anything.


Some tubes are designed to run this way. If they are built to take it,
there is no harm done and I haven't ever found it to be sonically
detrimental. Now, keep im mind I am talking about tubes designed
to be run "in the red". Actually, the best sound I have ever heard came
from a tube running with a red plate.

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

Greg Pierce wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 19:02:22 +1100, the highly esteemed Patrick Turner
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:



Greg Pierce wrote:


Sounds like a misaligned screen grid to me...


I don't like glowing metal anodes, or screen wires, in anything.


Some tubes are designed to run this way. If they are built to take it,
there is no harm done and I haven't ever found it to be sonically
detrimental. Now, keep im mind I am talking about tubes designed
to be run "in the red". Actually, the best sound I have ever heard came
from a tube running with a red plate.

In the fullness of time, I may indeed share your experience,
and be fully educated, but nearly always, so far, red plates mean something is
very wrong,
and something is about to give up soon, and perhaps take out an OPT.....

And so I fit active cathode current sensors to each output tube in all my amps.
Cathode biasing is more forgiving, if a tube goes beserko,
and your'e away on the john while it tries to get redder, even orange,
then up goes the cathode voltage, as desperate efforts are
going on between cathode and G1 to shut down the runaway ,
and if you are lucky poof goes the cathode R.
The PS caps, rectifier, and all trannie windings
should be able to withstand sessions like this, but many old amps
just burned their OPT primaries open, and this led to an "upgrade" to SS
in many households.

I don't know of many octals designed to run red, but yeah,
some tubes are. I haven't used any, but I do have a couple of
used QE208 ( I think that's the right no ), and these power beam tetrodes
have 3 separate horizontal cathodes, and two graphite plates,
taken to a top cap, and I thought they were better triode or UL connected than
the 13E1,
and only about 500v needed for an SE supply.
Its only a glass envelope, and with audio one don't want blowers,
and class A SE is pushing such tubes quite hard, since they are normally used
in class B or C circuits with RF amps.
Red hot anode plates held by the rods to the top cap isn't all that sturdy.

The makers had the 90 watt rating for the 13E1 calculated for class B use
where the amount of time the tube spends trying to get rid of
90 watts of heat is a small % of the duty cycle.
They might be biased at 20 watts each in a PP circuit, but make 300 watts
output in class B.

Patrick Turner.








--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

I removed the 270 ohm single cathode R and bypass cap,
grounded the CFB winding CT, and placed in a pair of
separate RC cathode networks between the ends of the CFB winding
and the cathodes, so that Ia then settled
to about 60 mA in each tube.
The red spot dissappeared, and the musicality and clarity returned.
I don't know how long the tortured old tubes would carry on for,
but some folks are determined to NOT do a retube.


This may well have been because there was no longer an unbalanced current saturating the core of the output transformer. With 90mA and 40mA, that's a whopping 50mA of un balanced DC going though the core of a transformer that's probably designed for no more than a 5 or
10 mA imbalance. I'm not suprised the amplifier sounded bad.

Just to satisfy curiosity, try cranking up an 807 or 6L6 GC class AB1 amplifier just to the point where the plates start to glow a dull red - only visible in a darkened room. I doubt that you will notice much of a change in the sound, and if you do, it will likely be as
a slight reduction in distortion.


I know I have read that some tubes are designed to run with a dull red anode, especially larger transmitting style tubes - although I don't know if this is one of them.

I don't think the 13E1 benefits with a red anode.


Benefit is a subjective thing - like anything in design, setting the bias of a tube correctly is a technical exercise and not a guessing game. If you bias the tube too hot, it will not be biased on the centre of its load line, and then won't sound as good. I do know
however that some tubes were designed to operate with a dull red glow at full plate dissapation, so one shouldn't be alarmed by it, or avoid using tubes at full ratings because of the glow.



This sounds like one monster of an amplifier, very cool! I imagine it's a nice amp to keep going in the winter, long after the music is over - just to keep the abient temperature up! (well, I've done that before - then again it tends to get awfully cold here in the
winter!)

The info about the 13E1 amps is at
http://www.turneraudio.com.au/htmlwe...22monobloc.htm

They each draw only about 135 watts from the mains, so
you'd have to huddle close to get warm.
My PC and a couple of light bulbs do more to keep me warm.

The 300 watters I made might keep you warmer, they
draw about 500 watts each.


Maybe it's because of my North American affection to all things powerful, but those 300W amplifiers have got to be among the most impressive pieces of home built audio gear I have ever seen! (I just checked them out, again) The fact that you wound your own transformers
makes them even more amazing - they look to be the work of a company, and not of one man. Honestly move over Marantz 9's I have a new idea what to do when I win the lotto

Max Holubitsky wrote:

I removed the 270 ohm single cathode R and bypass cap,
grounded the CFB winding CT, and placed in a pair of
separate RC cathode networks between the ends of the CFB winding
and the cathodes, so that Ia then settled
to about 60 mA in each tube.
The red spot dissappeared, and the musicality and clarity returned.
I don't know how long the tortured old tubes would carry on for,
but some folks are determined to NOT do a retube.


This may well have been because there was no longer an unbalanced current saturating the core of the output transformer. With 90mA and 40mA, that's a whopping 50mA of un balanced DC going though the core of a transformer that's probably designed for no more than a 5 or
10 mA imbalance. I'm not suprised the amplifier sounded bad.

But the amp should be able to make 1/2 a watt without the DC imbalance
affecting it much.
The high current in the overheated KT66 was the cause of the problem.
Its sounded raspy and just awful, probably 20% imd...



Just to satisfy curiosity, try cranking up an 807 or 6L6 GC class AB1 amplifier just to the point where the plates start to glow a dull red - only visible in a darkened room. I doubt that you will notice much of a change in the sound, and if you do, it will likely be as
a slight reduction in distortion.

The slight reduction could be in the ultra high classA condition for which I see
no purpose.

I have never thought I needed to perform such an experiment.
Red plated tubes are generally teetering on the edge of a failure,
and why tempt fate?




I know I have read that some tubes are designed to run with a dull red anode, especially larger transmitting style tubes - although I don't know if this is one of them.

I don't think the 13E1 benefits with a red anode.


Benefit is a subjective thing - like anything in design, setting the bias of a tube correctly is a technical exercise and not a guessing game. If you bias the tube too hot, it will not be biased on the centre of its load line, and then won't sound as good. I do know
however that some tubes were designed to operate with a dull red glow at full plate dissapation, so one shouldn't be alarmed by it, or avoid using tubes at full ratings because of the glow.

I just have never got around to using tubes which are designed to run red hot.

The bias point for the SEUL 13E1 is at 190mA and with Ea = +378v.
The nominal load is around 2.2k, and this allows the load to be 70% less,
or more, and still get a reasonable undistorted PO 20 watts, which will do me fine.

If the Ia is raised to 240 mA, the tube starts to glow red after 1/2 an hr.
But then you get slightly more po into a lower value RL,
with an absolute max of 35 watts, ( what I measured) but no,
it just ain't worth it.
The new owner of the 13E1 amps shown at my web pages
has tried all sorts of other gear and is now well pleased, as are his super critical
pals who come around for a listen, so mission done.
I don't need to include a measure of unreliablity into the amps
for a meagre 2-3 dB extra maximum SPL, when the owner rarely
uses more than 2 watts into his Vienna Acoustics speakers.

He has a preamp I made with a simple 6CG7 gain tube,
DACT attenuator, 6CG7 CF output stage.
He has a CD player modded by Joe Rasmussen in Sydney, with an Allen Wright
recipe, and he uses some half decent Nordost speaker wires, and some
platted fine wire interconnects.
I have not ever heard better music. Its not just due to me that all this
was the case, but due to the parts used, Beyslag resistors, Wima caps,
DACT, and the tube makers, etc.
In his system, we were able to plainly hear the difference between
the Telefunken NOS 6CG7, which were voted best amoungst 4 of us
at a listening session, then came the "polite" Mullard, with less bass,
or more muddy bass, and subdued treble, but with vocals you'd kill for,
and lastly the EH6CG7, which we thought needed more R&D, for sure.
I have used aust made 6CG7 in some amps, and I like them.

The sound you hear from a system is the due to the sum of all its parts.
As Jim says, the room is important, but in this case, the room is
good enough to discern what the triode electronics are doing,
or not doing.




This sounds like one monster of an amplifier, very cool! I imagine it's a nice amp to keep going in the winter, long after the music is over - just to keep the abient temperature up! (well, I've done that before - then again it tends to get awfully cold here in the
winter!)

The info about the 13E1 amps is at
http://www.turneraudio.com.au/htmlwe...22monobloc.htm

They each draw only about 135 watts from the mains, so
you'd have to huddle close to get warm.
My PC and a couple of light bulbs do more to keep me warm.

The 300 watters I made might keep you warmer, they
draw about 500 watts each.


Maybe it's because of my North American affection to all things powerful, but those 300W amplifiers have got to be among the most impressive pieces of home built audio gear I have ever seen! (I just checked them out, again) The fact that you wound your own transformers
makes them even more amazing - they look to be the work of a company, and not of one man. Honestly move over Marantz 9's I have a new idea what to do when I win the lotto

The 300 watt amps could have matched the Reference Series 600 watters made by ARC,
and only another 4 output tubes and a slightly higher B+ and fixed bias would have
been required, at a marginal cost increase, because the parts size increase
between a 300w amps and 600 w amp is only marginal.
I could have built the 300 w chassis with fixed bias, and a slightly lower
RL, and made easily make 500 watts, but there isn't anyone I know
who NEEDS 500 watts. Some do need 200 watts,
and these amps fit that requirement easily.

For any DIYer building such amps, you'd need 4 mths spare time,
during which one has to abandon all notions of mainstream bean counter
philosophy.
Then you need an effective simple good tranny winding lathe,
plenty experience at hand wiring on tag strips,
and about USD $4,000 to purchase all the materials for
the the chassis, tubes, sockets, connectors, wire, laminations, etc.
Although it all weighs 100 kG, for two channels, its not difficult,
as all the trannies use thick wire, which tends to lay on better than
many more turns of fine wire used in 5050 amps.

Put it this way, its a lot more effort and $$ for each watt in a 50 watt amp than for
a 300 watt amp.
As the power goes up, the $/w tumbles.

In hindsight, the painted finish is fragile, since the amps are so heavy,
and powder coating is better, although a combination
of say chrome grills, and transformer covers over a powder coated steel chassis
may have been better.

I have thought about using a six pack of 13E1 tubes in acoustical PP,
and this might give the same max po, with the similar initial 100 watts of class A at least.
I haven't tried 13E1 PP, or in acoustical, maybe they are well suited,
but I don't know if they would sound better than EL34/6CA7/6550/KT88, etc.

I might add that some mainland chinese gentlemen spammed me
with some info on tranny winding lathes they make for export,
and I asked them for a pile of information, which dutifully arrived a day later.
They could supply a lathe suitable for what I do for USD $2,750.
I replied that I had made my own for USD $150, but I had no auto traverse
guide, and did they have something, and did they know anyone who'd be able to wind
transformers, ( so I wouldn't have to the donkey work ).
They replied that they would like to stay friends, and if they heard of someone,
they'd let me know, but no, there weren't any cheaper winding machines around.
Now I know the workers in china are paid a pittance,
but their businessmen are sharp.

Patrick Turner.