Tube Museum Needs Help
Here is a message from Michael Brown, the president of the International Tube Museum:

 

International Vacuum Tube Museum

 

Urgent News

 

Most of the Vacuum Tube Museum?s artifacts, Vacuum Tubes, equipment, furniture, books, photographs, etc. have been in a donated warehouse space. On October 12^th we learned that the warehouse was sold, and we have to move everything immediately! And then on October 19^th we learned that we have to move out of our donated offices due to changes in the donor?s lease with the building?s owner! Our new building will not be ready for several months! We have identified several places to put everything into temporary storage until we can move into our new building, but we need funds to cover the unexpected costs of packing, moving, temporary rent, etc. Depending on which location and all the other fees, we need about $11,000-$14,000 to pay for these unforeseen costs over the next few months. And we need $3,650 by the end of October!

 

Why is the Vacuum Tube Museum important? Some years ago, we were shocked to discover that there was no museum dedicated to vacuum tubes! The history of the vacuum tube is the history of all electronics? every electronic device we have today! The Museum is a pale reflection of what we can become. By working with all the other museums, libraries, manufacturers... all tube-oriented organizations, the International Vacuum Tube Museum fulfills the vital need to preserve everything that documents vacuum tubes and vacuum tube-based objects as part of our civilization and our culture for current and future generations.

 

Please help with any amount. You can donate at our website here.

 

And please tell everyone you know to join and help the Museum preserve the history of vacuum tubes.

 

Thank you for your help.

 

Michael W. Brown, President Pro Tem

International Vacuum Tube Museum

 

 

 

Post RMAF Comments
After finishing my last post on the 2016 RMAF, I felt mixed emotions. It was great seeing old friends and making new ones, but I sorely missed seeing so many of the old gang who had not shown up this time. I enjoyed getting to talk circuits in person, but I also missed having any of the longer, more intensive circuitry discussions, particularly the alcohol-lubricated talks. (Some topologies elude being apprehended by the abstemious, revealing their inner working only to those given to excess, frivolity, and speculative imagination—and to those less sober.) Moreover, this last RMAF might be the only one where I didn't glean any trade secrets. Seldom are secrets freely given, but often they can be found from close inspection of the equipment. (A few manufacturers like to show off the insides of their pretty audio gear; and those coverless units reveal a great deal, if you know where to look.) I loved the enthusiasm and youth of the Can-Jam crowd, but I wished that more of it over spilled into the rest of the show, flooding the gloomy and funerary rooms. I diligently and earnestly took photos of interesting products, but I only covered a fraction of them in my post. (Next year, I plan on bringing a notebook to jot down my observations.)

One realization hit me hard, however, after finishing my last post: it is a lot easier to write about an event like the RMAF than to write about circuits. Much easier. In other words, my already moderate respect for the minor-rivulet—stream of any sort is too at odds with reality—audio press grew even more moderate. (Is such a thing possible? Can one be more moderate?) Of course, green grass always appears easier to cut and maintain on the other side of your own fence. Sometimes, however, it actually is easier to cut and maintain, particularly when it is made of Astroturf.

A decade ago, while enjoying a fine Indian dinner with an audio-magazine editor, I listened to him bemoan the flood applications he received from would-be audio-equipment reviewers—most of whom, he informed me, were lawyers. He had a point. You borrow new audio stuff, you write about new audio stuff; if you say nice things, you might get to keep the audio stuff or procure it on the cheap.

In contrast, each circuit and schematic is a like a Chinese wood-piece puzzle that must be carefully taken apart, piece by piece. (And should the circuit prove novel, i.e. strikingly new, then no fallback resources are available, such as Wikipedia or electronic textbooks.)

Back in the day when Audio magazine was sold in the magazine racks at super markets and the description of "mainstream" actually applied, I thought that the magazine should hire a circuit editor/reviewer, so that each product being reviewed would also receive a schematic review, where someone (dare I say it, someone like me) would comment on the actual circuit, offering praise, condemnation, and potential modification as needed. Yes, yes, I know that it would  never happen, as just about all audio-gear manufacturers imagine that their products are as precious as the Hope Diamond and as unique as a snowflake, designs so revolutionary that armed guards must protect the valuable schematic from the prying eyes of industrial spies. Sure. Of course, a few manufacturers do know the sad truth that exposing their schematic to scrutiny would reveal how desperately monotonous and tedious their design is. Who after all wants to be seen naked by the world? Much better to let the fancy enclosures and fanciful ad copy hide what resides inside. We always read that the codpiece will make a comeback soon; in high-end audio it already has.

In short, writing my last post felt like a vacation, although attending the RMAF felt more like hard work. Paradoxically, creating a new circuit feels like a trip to Disney Land, while drawing its schematic, running SPICE simulations on it, and writing about the circuit feels like hard work.

 

 

Cathode-Coupled Amplifier
What I really need to do use some sort of signaling icons or emoticons or symbols that would alert you to what to expect. The Spanish-speaking people when writing, for example, quite intelligently place a "¿" in front of and a "?' in back of questions. In chess notation, "!" denotes a good move; "!!" a brilliant move; "?" a poor move; "??" an insanely bad move; and "!?" a possibly good or brilliant move, but one also fraught with danger; and the list does not end there.

=     Equal Position
+-   White is much better
-+   Black is much better
+=  White is slightly better
=+  Black is slightly better

Well, why do I need to use signaling symbols before writing about the cathode-coupled amplifier circuit? My words might only deliver an overview of existing practice, of what is found in old electronic textbooks, the stuff most tube practitioners already know. Alternatively, my words might describe minor modifications to the standard cathode-coupled amplifier or, indeed, major reformations and overhauls of the circuit. What do you think of these three icons for textbook, modifications, and new approaches?

Of course, I might cover all of the above in a new post. In fact, I plan on doing all three in this post, my thirteenth post on the topic of the cathode-coupled amplifier topology.

The textbook overview of the cathode-coupled amplifier is simple enough: the input triode is configured as a cathode follower, while the output triode is configured as a grounded-cathode amplifier.

Since the cathode follower offers no signal gain, why not take it out, leaving only the grounded-grid amplifier? The answer is that the grounded-grid amplifier is difficult to drive, as its input impedance is low and the cathode is not likely to be at ground potential. Thus, a cathode follower was used, as it input grid presented a nearly-infinite impedance and could easy be tied to ground potential. Of course, other buffer circuits could be used to drive the grounded-grid amplifier; for example, a White cathode follower or emitter follower would also work. We could also use an isolation transformer, which would eliminate the need for a negative power-supply rail and large shared cathode resistor or constant-current source.

An added advantage to using an isolation transformer is that the grounded-cathode triode could be connected to a negative power-supply rail, but without incurring the usual power-supply-noise problems.

Another possibility is to use the transformer coupling along with an inductive load for the grounded-grid stage.

The inductor load displaces so little voltage, assuming a low-DCR, that we can use the same valued cathode resistors.

 

 

Hybrid Cathode-Coupled Amplifiers
Another approach we can take to driving the low-impedance cathode is to use an emitter follower (or source follower).

The PNP transistor drives the cathode while presenting a low-impedance input to the input cathode follower. Note how this circuit is the exact opposite of a current mirror, as the current variation is not mirrored, but inverted. In other words, as the input triode draws more current, the output triode draws less current.

By adding a zener, we can lose the plate resistor and capacitor. Remember that without a plate resistor, the input triode sees a much larger cathode-to-plate voltage; thus, its cathode voltage must be higher in order for it to draw the same amount of current as the output triode.

Note the replacement of the cathode resistor by a constant-current source, which will allow for larger output voltage swings and lower distortion.

Still, the big question to answer is why bother with this hybrid solution? The answer is that the negative power-supply rail can be much lower than typical, with as little as -5V sufficing, rather than a few hundred negative volts. More importantly, we can use dissimilar triodes, such as the 12DW7, which holds 12AX7 and 12AU7 triodes.

The 12AX7 triode draws only 1mA, while the 12AU7 draws 5mA. The 12DW7 tube's heater is powered by the -12V power-supply rail. The 100k and 33k resistors form a feedback pair that establishes a gain of 4 or +12dB. As it stands, this is a fine little tube-based line stage amplifier, as +12dB of gain is usually all that is needed these days. Of course, the 12k cathode resistor could be replaced by a constant-current source, such as the famous LM334 or a FET-based alternative.

Just how well does the above circuit perform in SPICE simulations? Here is the answer.

Translated into THD, the answer is below 0.01% distortion. Not bad. More importantly, note how there is 2nd harmonic and that is pretty much it. Amazing performance for one tube and not much more. Housed in a $600 enclosure, adorned with fancy knobs, accompanied by Dueland or Mundorf coupling capacitors, and sporting a $5,000 price tag, this simple line stage amplifier would be the envy of your friends. On the other hand, for less than $400, using excellent but less expensive parts, you could build the same line stage amplifier.

Another way to think about this circuit is treat this circuit like a tube-based OpAmp. Often we need a small amount of fixed gain and not much more; for example, you might need to drive passive filter or boost an old tube-based tuner's output. The Circuit's PSRR comes in at about -18dB and its output impedance is about 2.2k. If we desire the lowest noise and output impedance, however, then something like the following is the better way to go.

The ECC99 and 12DW7 should share a 12V heater power supply that is voltage referenced to +60Vdc. The Aikido cathode follower output stage strips away the ripple form the output signal. The 100k and 20k resistors set the gain to 4.

Or, we can use the PNP transistor a bit differently.

The transistor and cathode follower create a push-pull buffer, which can aggressively pull the grounded-cathode amplifier input up and down.

As you can see, there are many ways to drive a cathode. Indeed, a complete mini power amplifier could be used, such as an OpAmp.

Why would anyone want the above circuit? Here is a possible example: you have a single-ended output stage whose output triode requires +/-80Vpk grid-voltage swings to achieve full output. The above circuit could easily deliver those voltage swings; in addition, those swings would be low-distortion, low-output-impedance, and wide bandwidth. Moreover, the OpAmp offers low-noise and performs an auto-bias on the triode, keeping its plate centered on 200V at idle. The load that the OpAmp must drive would be equal to (Ra + rp)/(mu + 1) in parallel with Rk. If the OpAmp is not up to the task, then the following design would unburden the OpAmp. (Most modern OpAmps are up to the task, which explains why they are found in so many headphone amplifiers.)

The PNP transistor presents a much lower input impedance than the cathode.

Are we done? No. We are never done. For example, we could add some Aikido Mojo thus:

By injecting a small portion of the B+ noise into the triode's grid, we create a power-supply-noise null at the triode's plate, thereby giving the OpAmp less work to do.

How about wrapping the OpAmp's negative feedback loop around the entire amplifier, so the output tube and output transformer would be included? I wouldn't, as we would be likely to run into too many phase shifts. On the other hand, we could get away with two feedback loops.

The output stage gets its own negative feedback loop, as the output transformer's secondary attaches to the output tube's cathode. Note the 32V DC offset at the output, but the speaker is safe, as the transformer's secondary should present a very-low DCR. (If a negative bias voltage were used in place of the constant-current source, then the DC offset would almost entirely disappear.)

How does this feedback loop work? Imagine a positive pulse created by pushing the woofer; this pulse would force the output tube's cathode to become slightly more positive, which would effectively make its grid more negative, which would decrease the tube's current conduction, which would be reflected through the output transformer as a negative output voltage swing, thereby countering the positive pulse. Degenerative feedback, in other words. Understand that we must pay a price for this feedback loop, as the input signal to the output tube must be much larger. For example, if the peak output swing into the speaker is 16Vpk, then the output tube will needed to see +/-48Vpk swings at its grid.

 

 

Cathode-Coupled Amplifier PSRR
Why the sad face? The cathode-coupled amplifier offers a low input capacitance and no phase inversion, but not a great PSRR figure—at least not as usually configured.

One big problem is that when the power switch is flipped on, the negative power-supply rail voltage is likely to develop almost instantly, while the triodes are still waking up and not conducting. A big problem this, as the grids will be 200V more positive than the cathodes, which can easily lead to cathode damage, as the huge voltage differential can strip away sections of the cathode's surface. The solution is simple and cost less than a dime:

Under normal operation, the cathode is always at some positive voltage, so the diode falls out of the circuit, as it is reverse biased. It only conducts, when the triodes are cold or missing from their socket. In all the following schematics, mentally add the diode; I left it out to aid clarity of topology.

The second problem worthy of an unhappy face is that the bipolar power supply ripple gets imprinted on the output signal.

Not all the positive rail ripple leaks through, only about 50% of it. Adding a constant-current source, paradoxically enough, will only make the PSRR figure worsen, not improve.

My solution, actually just one of my many solutions, is to use two long-tail cathode resistors and bypass one of them with a large-valued capacitor. This was a trick I came up with over 30 years ago to quell the power-supply noise leaving a differential amplifier.

What is going on is that the bipolar power supply ripple is equal in magnitude but out of phase between positive and negative rails. (Or, at least it should be; the balance between the two rails can be thrown off by loading one rail more than the other.) The two cathodes are tied together and follow the grids, so almost no ripple appears at the cathodes. Thus, the 4.99k resistor must see almost all of the negative power-supply rail ripple, which will induce a varying current flow through the resistor, which in turn travels up and through the triodes and their plate loads. (Imagine that the two 10k plate resistors are in parallel, creating a 5k resistance.)

Well, as the positive bipolar power supply ripple pulls upward in voltage, the negative bipolar power supply ripple pulls down in voltage, so the increased current flow through the 4.99k cathode resistor will also flow through the plate resistor, causing a greater voltage drop across the resistors, which will result in the plate voltage remaining constant. Magic. Aikido mojo magic.

Another way to achieve the same bipolar-power-supply-noise null is as follows.

All the DC current flows through the 10.1k cathode resistor, while only AC current flows through the 9.76k cathode resistor. In AC terms, the two cathode resistors are in parallel and the same bipolar-power-supply-noise null obtains as before. As the 10.1k cathode resistor is the only cathode resistor that will get hot, it must be a high-wattage type. So what advantage does this alternative arrangement offer? The large-valued capacitor terminating the 9.76k cathode resistor will likely be an electrolytic type. Electrolytic capacitors are complex devices that exhibit effective series resistance (ESR), effective series inductance (ESL), and leakage current. Thus, placing these failing off to the side might improve the overall functioning. On the other hand, if a high-value, high-quality film (or high-quality electrolytic) capacitor was used instead, then both variations should work identically.

Another approach is to inject a portion of the positive rail ripple into the grounded-cathode triode's grid.

The gain remains at 4, or +12dB, as the feedback network remains in place, but the PSRR is greatly improved. In the SPICE simulations, a 6DJ8/ECC88 tube was used. Different tubes and different feedback resistor values will require a different ratio of positive rail ripple to be injected. In other words, expect a lot of work. The workaround to extra work might be to make a universal setup that always creates a power-supply-noise null, regardless of the tubes used or feedback ratios. The following circuit allows twice the ripple to be present on the negative power-supply rail than on the positive rail, which was achieved by using twice as big an RC-filter capacitor on the positive rail.

Most OpAmps suffer from a poorer PSRR figure for their negative power-supply connection than their positive connection.

Thus, some high-end audio gear use asymmetrical power supply reservoir capacitor values, so that a much greater amount of capacitance in the negative power-supply rail is used to overcome the imbalance in PSRR between the positive and negative power supply connections.

But in this Aikido-mojo version of the cathode-coupled amplifier, the positive rail gets the added capacitance. Great are we done now? No. We are never done. The huge problem with this solution is that electrolytic capacitors are famously off their stated value, with low-voltage electrolytic capacitors often holding more capacitance than they are labeled and high-voltage electrolytic capacitors holding less. Even if you carefully measured the electrolytic capacitors, they might drift of value over time. The better approach is always to vary the resistors rather than the capacitors.

The top RC filter holds a 2k resistor, while the bottom RC filter holds a 1k resistor. Note the differing voltage drops and the twice as big ripple on the negative power-supply rail. Also note that the 100µF capacitors must be matched (and should be identical capacitors). Just how well does the above circuit work over a bandwidth of 10Hz to 100kHz? The following SPICE-generated graph tells all.

Note that the most important frequencies to look at are 100Hz and 120Hz, as those two are where most of the power-supply ripple will be found. Not bad, as well over -100dB of PSRR is shown. Of course, the larger the power-supply capacitors, the deeper the attenuation.

 

 

An Odd Catch from the Past
I like digging through old patents of tube circuits. It was during one of those digs that encountered this odd cathode-coupled amplifier circuit. Odd, how so? Before answering take a good look at its schematic and description for the patent:

3,011,131
DIRECT CATHODE COUPLED AMPLIFIER
Edwin Lyon III, Lanham, Md., assignor to ACE Industries,
Incorporated, New York, N.Y.,
a corporation of New Jersey
Filed Oct. 31, 1958, Ser. No. 771,067
5 Claims. (Cl. 330-70)

This invention relates to amplifiers and more particularly to cathode follower type amplifiers employed in negative feedback amplifier systems. In the design of electronic amplifiers there is a constant need to improve amplifier operation by devising component arrangements which will more nearly yield an ideal output. In cathode follower type amplifiers, a preferred design would yield a device having maximum efficiency, gain, linearity and stability and which would have a high dynamic impedance, to the power supplies which feed it. This invention provides the advantages just mentioned and yet has the property of low power waste in resistive sinks or other power absorbing components whose purpose is to accommodate change in operating conditions.

It is therefore a broad object of this invention to provide a circuit for a direct coupled amplifier, intended for negative feedback applications.

It is another object of this invention to provide an amplifier including a cathode follower configuration output in which high gain, linearity and stability are functional features.

As I looked over the schematic, my first thought was bewilderment, as I had thought that the big decade for blowing pot and dropping LSD was in the 1960s, not the 1950s. Why? As a cathode-coupled amplifier circuit, this circuit was stupendously stupid. But then, it's not really a cathode-coupled amplifier circuit. Well, what is it then? This patent refers not to a phase preserving cathode-coupled amplifier, but a phase inverting grounded-cathode amplifier which employs positive feedback and which must be entirely enclosed within a larger negative feedback loop.

It is, in other words, an attempt to create the electronic equivalent of a perpetual-motion machine. Back in the fifties, when electrical engineers were drunk on negative feedback, the notion arose that if an amplifier could give rise to infinite gain, then that infinite gain could infinitely power negative feedback, resulting in zero distortion and zero output impedance. The only problem was that gain, like anything else of value, is all too finite. The only way left to get more gain, once the limits imposed by limited transconductance were hit was to employ positive feedback, which would yield crazy high gain, crazy high and crazy distorted gain—but that was okay, as the crazy high negative feedback ratio would erase the distortion. Yeah, sure. It didn't.

Norman Crowhurst did his best to explain how the plan was just an electronic ponzi scheme, but few listened. In his own words, from the third chapter of his book, Understanding HiFi Circuits.

If the infinite-gain stage produces any distortion, this is likely to get magnified. Without the negative loop feedback from output to input, the stage has infinite gain and considerable distortion (self-generated). Applying the negative loop feedback brings the gain down from infinity to some finite value and at the same time restricts the distortion in this stage—or would do so if the negative feedback had no distortion elements of its own. But, because of the distortion elements in the negative loop feedback, particularly the output stage, this fact is no longer true and the distortion elements themselves will interact in a way that becomes somewhat complicated to predict.

This can be particularly troublesome when the output stages are driven to clipping point. Then the negative feedback momentarily disappears, leaving the “infinite-gain” stage free to “take off” until clipping ceases.

Positive feedback has some limitations associated with overall stability and response criteria. Over a single stage, feedback merely modifies bandwidth—positive narrows it, negative widens it—and the overall criteria are simple resultants of both forms. If positive feedback is used over more than one stage, the bandwidth is still narrowed but the associated phase shift is no longer simple so the ultimate interaction with a negative feedback loop can produce complicated and almost unpredictable results.

Verily.

 

 

Next Time
More to say on the topic of cathode-coupled amplifier. If you cannot wait, here are some links to my previous posts on this topic:

     1999/tubecircuits/Common-Cathode Amplifiers
     1999/tubecad.com/july99/page16
     2005/April/blog 42
     2007/05/blog 105
     2007/05/blog 106
     2007/05/blog 107
     2007/05/blog 108
     2008/11/blog 152
     2010/11/blog 194
     2011/11/blog 219
     2012/10/blog 245
     2014/08/blog 302

 

//JRB

 

If you enjoyed reading this post from me, then you might consider becoming one of my patrons at Patreon.com.

For those of you who still have old computers running Windows XP (32-bit) or any other Windows 32-bit OS, I have setup the download availability of my old old standards: Tube CAD, SE Amp CAD, and Audio Gadgets. The downloads are at the GlassWare-Yahoo store and the price is only $9.95 for each program.

http://glass-ware.stores.yahoo.net/adsoffromgla.html

So many have asked that I had to do it.

WARNING: THESE THREE PROGRAMS WILL NOT RUN UNDER VISTA 64-Bit or WINDOWS 7 & 8 or any other 64-bit OS.

I do plan on remaking all of these programs into 64-bit versions, but it will be a huge ordeal, as programming requires vast chunks of noise-free time, something very rare with children running about. Ideally, I would love to come out with versions that run on iPads and Android-OS tablets.