Re: Your bypass C's

Posted by mqracing (M) on April 12, 2007 at 10:45:47

In Reply to: Re: Your bypass C's posted by dave slagle on April 12, 2007 at 10:29:50:

DS wrote:

:::2-200K is really easy as long s you keep the DC out and work at 600 ohms :-):::

there are examples, again, of pretty good FR responses in tranneys with nominal primary impedances well above 600 ohms.

for example, I can think of a samll signal PP trans that Peerless made for the Fort Wayne Steel Co. that had a 30K PP primary and was rated at plus or minus 1 db from 5 hertz to 75 kilohertz.

And there are many examples of large signal OT that have bandwidths from 10 hertz to 75KHZ or 100KHZ (and some even higher) that also have primary impedances in the 3K to 10K range and have normal secondary speaker load impedances.

keeping (or minimizing the magnitude of) unbal DC out of the cores makes life much, much easier. Unbal dc plate currents consume the core's flux density and makes the iron work harder... when the iron has to work harder (operate at larger and larger flux densities) so doesn't the core induced harmonic distortions go up. It is just one good reason to strictly limit or to totally eliminate DC currents from transformer windings.

Also... dc unbal current will tend to rob the core of it's perm... and thus make the L go down... thus contribute to moreso poorer quality LF response.

I do agree with you on the point that FR is but one of the many factors that must or should be considered... but definitely not the sole factor in acheiving a good design. And the transformer with the widest BW may not always be the best sounding tranney--- frequency response is after all--- basically a quantitative measure not inherently a qualitative measure.

MSL

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Any problem when much higher load for input tube ? - ychungmd 02:51:07 04/11/07 (20)

What are you doing with the other 1/2 of the triode? - richardl 10:57:26 04/12/07 (0)

Re: Any problem when much higher load for input tube ? - drlowmu 06:59:47 04/11/07 (18)

my reason for no decoupling - ychungmd 03:52:11 04/12/07 (3)

Re: my reason for no decoupling - drlowmu 06:50:56 04/12/07 (2)

Re: my reason for no decoupling - Dave Cigna 16:00:59 04/13/07 (0)

Appreciate greatly (nt) - ychungmd 15:10:40 04/12/07 (0)

Your bypass C's - drlowmu 07:33:24 04/11/07 (13)

Re: Your bypass C's - ychungmd 03:54:19 04/12/07 (0)

Re: Your bypass C's - Tre' 14:25:06 04/11/07 (11)

Re: Your bypass C's - dave slagle 06:29:43 04/12/07 (9)

Re: Your bypass C's - Tre' 09:51:58 04/12/07 (8)

Re: Your bypass C's - dave slagle 10:29:50 04/12/07 (3)

Re: Your bypass C's - mqracing 10:45:47 04/12/07 (2)

also consider.... - mqracing 10:51:25 04/12/07 (1)

Re: also consider.... - drlowmu 13:48:58 04/12/07 (0)

Re: Your bypass C's - mqracing 10:28:34 04/12/07 (3)

Re: Your bypass C's - Tre' 18:01:48 04/12/07 (2)

Re: Your bypass C's - mqracing 18:37:42 04/12/07 (1)

My bad - Tre' 19:11:32 04/12/07 (0)

Re: Your bypass C's - drlowmu 16:02:33 04/11/07 (0)

Follow Ups

Re: Your bypass C's - mqracing 10:45:47 04/12/07 (2)

also consider.... - mqracing 10:51:25 04/12/07 (1)

Re: also consider.... - drlowmu 13:48:58 04/12/07 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.