THD benchmark

I’m still in the process of testing valves, here is how the ranking is coming up so far. This is a mix of driver and output valves. All tested at Vo=+22.22dBu:

Looking at the chart above a couple of interesting points to highlight:

4P1L is the most linear valve I’ve found so far.
6e5P and 6C45 are expected to be on the top five anyway.
12P17L despite of having similar characteristics as 4P1L is not that linear
6N6P and 6N6P-I disappointed me. I thought the would be more linear..
46 and 47 in triode mode are superb drivers

Have so many other ones to test, but limited time….

Expect this chart to be updated in the future, so stay tuned 🙂

CX301a DHT preamp

Here is my latest incarnation of the DHT pre-amplifier:

Many claim that the 26 is the best sounding DHT valve for a pre-amp. I will agree to a certain extent, however I personally found the thoriated-tungsten filament sound a bit more rewarding to my ears. A more clear and defined treble in my opinion.

Since I plugged in my CX301a incarnation of my breadboarded preamp, I just left it there as I loved its sound. Certainly there are things to be improved to enhance the dampening of microphony, albeit I have to confess it hasn’t been a problem to me. Have heard some valves to howl, and this is not one of those. Clearly suspending the valve socket or adding the rubber dampers to the valve holding plate or socket will help massively.

Filament bias is a must in my DHT designs. Since discovered it, can’t avoid not removing most capacitors that I can from the signal path. In this case the filament resistor R9 will increase anode resistance by R9 times (μ+1). This will also impact the stage gain, but here all this is not a problem. You may find this is way too much gain in your system. Rod Coleman’s filament DC regulators are crucial to provide a hum-free stage. Attempting AC or other DC regulator is likely to bring frustration to your design. Believe me, I’ve been there before…

Now turning our attention to the anode load I will not open a debate here (or a can of worms!). You can make your choice of using a superior quality output transformer (and by superior means a lot of money!) or you can look at various options. A choke is a great idea, but special care needs to be taken to ensure choke is not picking up any hum from the remaining parts of the circuit – specially the supply transformers, etc. I have experimented for some time various types of CCS or gyrators as sandy loads for the valves with excellent results. If you are one of those that feels that sand is a sacrilege, then I suggest you stop reading this post now.

Gyrators are superb. They can simulate the AC response of an inductor of 300H (but without storing energy as a real inductor) or above very easily at 1/100 of its cost. You can easily adjust the valve operating point ensuring this is maintained despite the ageing impact of the valve or the eventual replacement of it. The anode voltage will be fixed by the gyrator, the current not. Cascoded MOSFET gyrators provide better supply ripple rejection and isolation. Using Q3 as a CCS instead of a high resistance potentiometer to set the anode voltage is better as it helps providing a better frequency response as impedance on this node is increased. A higher value of R10 will help reducing the size of the gyrator capacitor and the smaller the better it will sound in my experience.

M1 and M2 can be your depletion FET of choice. M1 should be a 250V rated one at least. Depending where you live, you will be inclined for using BSP129, LND150 or DN2540.

Previously I mentioned in some other posts that the mu-follower setup of the gyrator here provides a better output impedance and improves the performance of this valve significantly given its high anode resistance compared to other more suitable DHTs for this purpose such as 4P1L, 46 or 71a.

I’m not going to cover the HT supply here, but using a shunt regulator such as Salas, is one of the best choices here.

With Russian PIO capacitors you will get a fantastic result here, no need to start burning serious money on the capacitors until you are happy with the end to end build and you can then start looking at how to improve the sound of it by replacing some bits with better (or preferred) quality components

With an operating point of Ia=3mA you can get THD=0.08% at Vo=10Vpp. This will be subject of the quality of your CX301a. Some older globe 01a’s have a great sound, but they are not that linear. Hard to pick and chose your precious ladies here without testing them for linearity.

Valve THD analysis

Measuring triode linearity

Today decided to do a quick distortion test of on a sample of a variety of different valves. All either triodes or triode-strapped pentodes/tetrodes. As per my previous tests, distortion was measured at +22.22dBu (10 Vrms) at the output of the valve in common-cathode mode. Valves were loaded with the CCS I use in my curve tracer. The operating points were quickly optimised at hand, so I’m sure there may be some better operating points for some of the valves below which may improve their overall THD. If you have any suggestions, please let me know!

valve thd analysis table — Tested valves for THD

Need to retake these measures as the soundcard interface got damaged and results are showing significant distortion

Interesting to see in the chart above, that 6e5p and 6C45p are the best ones. This is in line with their reputation as drivers as they are capable of swinging many volts and producing very low distortion. In terms of harmonics I noticed that 6e5P provides a richer H3 and H5 as being a triode-strapped valve, whereas the 6c45p provide a dominant H2.

Also good to see that my favourite 46, 4P1L and 6CB5A (all triode-strapped) are very linear with anode currents of 40mA (with the exception of 46 as I measured THD on a previous operating point used for transconductance measurement). I should retake the 46 and drive it harder, I’m sure it will perform better at higher current.

Surprised with the results of the 6N6P-I. Was expecting this one a bit better, but perhaps it’s the pulse version distortion, so may need to get hold of an 6N6P and compare the results.

Update:
It looks like I blew up Pete Millett’s interface after measuring THD in float mode and exceeding the 10Vrms limit in this mode. Therefore measures such as 26, CX301a and others are not accurate. When testing 26 with my Ferrograph test set it came out to be 0.05%…
Stay tune until I repair the unit!

Finishing the curve tracer

Today I did a bit of extra work on the curve tracer with a view of finishing it. It has been a long and painful journey, but I’m reaching the end of it.

The transconductance tester is working perfect. I need to use the following ranges in my true RMS AC voltmeter:

0-2,000 μmho: 100mVrms scale
2,000μmho-50,0000μmho: 1Vrms scale

It’s probably the DC bias which affects the low scale. As an example when testing a 46 in triode mode (see datasheet for details), I tried the following operating point: Vg=-33V, Ia=22mA and the measure should be around 2.35 mVrms over 220mVdc. But in my bench voltmeter, above 17mA in the 46 doesn’t like it and cannot measure it, so need to change scale. I tested low transconductance valves in the lower AC scale such as CX301a, 26, 4P1L, 71a and then using the high AC scale, used 6e5P, 6C45, 6N6P amongst others.

The tracer now has a common-mode mains filter. This was required as at certain times during the day, specially in the evenings when the mains is really noise or my wife is using the microwave oven!, when tracing curves with the 1Ω sensing resistor and low anode currents (e.g. CX301a) then the noise level was sufficient to impact and distort the traced image. With the common-mode mains filter it works brilliantly.

Now need to place bottom plate and standing feet. Job done then and will move to some proper audio work!

Testing the circuit today, I measured 29 46 valves. Ended up discarding two which measured low and then when tested with the tracer found that curves weren’t good at all. Probably electrode misalignment as they weren’t just with low transconductance. Will upload some examples as it’s very interesting to see the difference

Cunningham CX301a

These RCA Cunningham CX-301a have short pins so had to use an external socket to trace the curves. They look really nice and the pair I got measure nearly 100%!

DHT preamp evolution

My 01a DHT preamplifier has performed flawlessly over the last 4 months or so. I do enjoy its warm sound and clear tone. I do prefer it to my 26 OT preamp, despite everyone says the contrary. I personally feel that the thoriated tungsten filament gives some sonic unique mark to the sound here.

I want to do the following test and compare differences in sound:

1) Gyrator load
2) Antitriode load
3) Choke
4) OT

Have my LL1660s which can take out temporarily from the 26 preamp, and also got a couple of chokes to use as well, oil caps, etc?

What do you think?

You better driver yourself

Time ago I asked Rod Coleman about the driving requirements of my 01a preamp whilst investigating the addition of a source follower stage to the preamp. Let’s have a look at a DHT stage loaded with a gyrator (or could well be a choke or whatever you like) driving a power amplifier.

Have you asked yourself whether your pre-amp is capable of driving your amp? How much burden does the cable parasitic capacitance add to the mix?

As an example we will use my current setup. A 45 SE amplifier with a 6j5 driver stage. We can approximate input impedance formed by:

$Ci=(Cp+(\mu+1)\cdot Cag)$

Where Ci is the amplifier’s input capacitance formed by the Miller effect of the valve’s input capacitance (Cag) and the additional parasitic capacitance of socket, wires and so forth. In this practical example where the input valve is an 6J5GT:

$Cp=50pF,\mu=20, Cag=4pF$

$Ci=(50pF+(20+1)\cdot 4pF)) \rightarrow Ci \approx 140pF$

If we now add the cable capacitance which could easily be 100pF per metre and at least 2 metres run from my pre-amp to the amp then:

$Ct= Ci+Ccable \rightarrow Ct=130pF+(100pF \cdot 2) = 330pF$

So with an input resistance of 100kΩ and a capacitance of about 330pF let’s have a look at the current requirements to drive this load. The cable current @ 50kHz should be:

$Xc=\tfrac{1}{2\cdot \pi \cdot f\cdot C}=\tfrac{1}{2\cdot \pi \cdot 50kHz\cdot 330pF} \approx 9650 \Omega$

Preamps output peak voltage is around 10V, So the current demanded by the cables would be:

$Ip=\frac {Vp}{Zc}=\frac{10V}{9650\Omega }\approx 1mA$

So if we want the preamp valve to source 1mA to the load, we need x10 current driving capability to be on the safe side. Clearly with an 26 (or 01a) we are a little on the low side as the bias current won’t be more than 4-6mA.

So there are clearly facts here to support the addition of a source/cathode-follower stage to the amp in addition to the improvement on the bass response due to a lower output impedance. Something we will look at some other time….

Improving the 01a DHT preamplifier stage

After playing with DHT preamps (26, 71a, 4P1L, 46), I ended up staying with a CX301a version of it. I liked its warm sound and tone so I decided to stay with it. It’s been over 2 months so far that I haven’t returned to my precious 26 preamp (I will probably revisit my 26 preamp based on latest updates from Andy Evans).As I’m working on a version of the 4-65a SE amp by Michael Koster, I started investigating options and ways of improving the 01a as will be the first valve of my amplifier.

Using curves plot with my curve tracer and Dmitry’s composite model, I got a very well matched spice model for the 01a.

I modelled in LTSpice two versions of the gyrator loaded preamp with filament bias and Rod Coleman’s superb filament regulator:

1) Version 1: Using Anatoly’s PNP-FET Gyrator

2) Version 2: using classic cascoded-FET gyrator with mu-follower output.

Interesting results came out of this first simulation test. I think I haven’t managed to optimise (again) Anatoly’s gyrator despite have managed to keep good VDS (38V) to keep the CoSS low. I get slightly worse THD (0.03% versus 0.016%) compared to the MOSFET version.

Looking at output impedance, version 1 has 10K @1kHz whereas the version 2 can get as low as 734 ohms but impedance raises significantly at low frequencies (70k version 1 versus 80k version 2). This can be reflected in the frequency response where version 1 performs better than version 2.

Output impedance (Version 1)

Output impedance (Version 2)

At high frequency both preamps perform very well up to 1MHz despite version 2 performing slightly better.

Frequency response (version 1)

Frequency response (version 2)

Tag: 01a

THD benchmark