<
Back

John
Broskie's Guide to Tube Circuit Analysis & Design

Next
>

18 Aug 2012

Part Two

More Past Items
I have a
few modest tube-based topics to cover that were meant to appear last year.
The first item began as a request from a reader who wanted a solid-state
version of the Broskie cathode follower—in order to better understand how
the original tube version worked! This may not make any sense to you, but
it makes perfect sense to me: he speaks fluent solid-state electronics,
having studied electrical engineering in college, and he is now learning
how to speak tube electronics. I gave him a few different translations of
vacuum-state into solid-state, which I had planned on showing everyone
last year, but which I never got around to actually posting.

Broskie CF in Solid-State

The Broskie cathode follower accepts a balanced set of input signals and
delivers an unbalanced output signal. It offers low distortion and low
output impedance and an excellent CMRR. See TCJ
October 1999 and Blog number 192.

The easiest translation would be to replace triodes with FETs, as both
are depletion-mode devices (both can be biased with cathode or source
resistor, as the grid and gate can be negative to the cathode or source
and yet the devices still conduct).

This Broskie source follower uses a monopolar power
supply and should use tightly-matched FETs for the best performance. In
fact, I worry about the output actually centering, as the typical FET
matched pair isn't all that matched. If the input signal comes right off a
voltage-out DAC, such as the WM8741
or the AK4393,
then the top input coupling capacitor can be omitted.

A low-pass filter can follow the above circuit or the
filter's function can be incorporated within the circuit.

From triode to FET to depletion-mode MOSFET is a
logical progression.

One additional problem we face today is that the
catalog actually available FETs shrinks daily. For example, high-voltage
(300V) FETs were once made, but no longer. Transistors have also seen a
huge dwindling of possible types. On the other hand, transistors are far
more generic, so we would have no real pr0blem finding suitable
transistors for a Broskie emitter follower. (For example, the ubiquitous
P2N2222 NPN type or the 2N3053 are good choices. For low-noise operation,
the BC550 or 2N5087 can be used.)

The emitter resistors do not "bias up" the transistors,
instead they promote stability and linearity, while preventing current
runaway. The two 1k resistors perform the task of getting the the two
transistors to center at half the B+ voltage. The assumption behind the
values in the above circuit is that a very-low (say +5V) B+ voltage would
be used. If a higher B+ voltage is needed, then the values would have to
be adjusted.

What about OpAmps? Could they be used to make a silicon
version of the BCF? The answer is that they could, but such a trip might
be unnecessary, as a single OpAmp makes a fine differential amplifier, as
shown below.

This circuit offers an excellent CMRR and converts a
balanced input signal into an unbalanced output signal. Still, it is fun
to ask what a two-OpAmp BCF would look like. The following circuit gets
close, but does not entirely capture the BCF's functioning.

For example, neither feedback loop attaches directly to
the output, as they do in the tube-based BCF. The next variation corrects
that discrepancy and makes use of two output transistors and a monopolar
power supply for the transistors.

The top input receives the positive input signal, while
the bottom input sees the negative input signal. In many ways, the OpAmps
function as superchargers for the output transistors, reducing their
output impedances and isolating them from the four feedback resistors.
One key aspect of the circuit that I must point out is that, as
drawn, the circuit isn't truly usable, as no provision was made for
establishing the desired idle current through the output transistors or
voltage division between transistors. So why show it at all?
Understanding, plain and simple.

In terms of sonics, I do not believe that the original
Broskie CF circuit based on triodes can be beat. I am showing this
solid-state version so that the tube version can be better understood, as
many audiophiles know OpAmp functioning extremely well. In other words,
think of these silicon examples as Rosetta Stones.

Another key aspect of the circuit that I must point out
is that it should not be mistaken for a Broskie OTL. See Blog
number 94.

(Ah, remember those skinny lines and gray backgrounds
of years past.) The Broskie OTL uses two additional triodes to supercharge
the two output tubes. Note how the top input triode drives and controls
the bottom output tube, the bottom input triode is in charge of the top
output tube. Translating this tube circuit into solid-state will require
flipping the OpAmp's inputs, as shown below.

This circuit is closer to being actually functional, as
the DC offset is handled, but it, too, needs more embellishment to set the
desired idle current through the output transistors. In fact, MOSFETs
might be the better choice for output devices, as they require less drive
current and their higher turn-on voltage might be an asset, as few OpAmps
can truly swing from rail to rail. Moving on to a slightly more actually
usable Broskie OTL in silicon is the following design, which uses
N-channel enhancement-mode MOSFETs.

The output stage is capacitor-coupled at the bottom
MOSFET, so that a fixed idle current through the MOSFETs can be set
independent of the OpAmps. The top OpAmp sets the DC offset at the output.
Both OpAmps get an additional 200k feedback resistor. These resistors
perform two functions: they allow non-unity-gain stable OpAmps to be used
and they complete a feedback path to the OpAmp's outputs. For the bottom
OpAmp, this function is critical, as this OpAmp would otherwise have no DC
feedback path, which is needed to keep its output voltage centered at
0Vdc. Okay, what would a similar output stage arrangement look like in the
BCF topology?

Similar, but certainly not the same as the previous
schematic. Once again, the top OpAmp controls the DC offset at the output;
the two-resistor voltage divider following the internal coupling capacitor
sets the idle current through the MOSFETs. The 1Meg resistor provides the
bottom OpAmp with a DC feedback path and the 0.1µF capacitor AC "grounds"
its inverting input. But as the bottom MOSFET inverts the signal from the
bottom OpAmp, this input effectively become the non-inverting input of the
bottom OpAmp and its MOSFET in combination.

Please note that I am not recommending any of
the OpAmp-based versions of the Broskie CF, as the simple OpAmp
differential amplifier is a better choice. On the other hand, the
FET-based and transistor-based BCF versions are interesting and could work
well in many applications.

SPICE and Easier
Solutions
The following does not hark back to last
year, but this year. Back in May (2012), a reader wrote an interesting
e-mail. He had read Blog number 231 and
he thought that I had needlessly complicated matters in my Aikido PP
headphone amplifier design, as shown below.

As he saw it, too many triodes and just too complex.
His alternative circuit was extremely interesting, but not for the usual
audio reasons. No, what interested me the most was the fundamental
unreality of the design. This was not his fault and I am not pointing out
this feature of his circuit to make fun of him or punish him. His circuit
was designed in SPICE and, in the world of SPICE, his circuit works
extremely well. Unfortunately, the results in SPICE and those in reality
need not overlap—particularly when dealing with tube circuits. Why? The
easy answer is that the SPICE tube model is fundamentally wrong; it sees
the the triode and pentode as being variable current sources. They aren't;
they are variable resistances. Remember, a current source in SPICE is not
a current limiter as it is in reality, but a current source in the same
way that a battery is a voltage source in reality: it can deliver current
all by itself. Do not believe it? Dig out a tube SPICE circuit and set the
B+ voltage to zero volts, then run a simulation.

Here is an example of SPICE not knowing how to handle a
triode:

Looks like a typical split-load phase splitter right?
Well, sort of. Note the cathode and plate voltages. How is it possible for
the plate to be -6.68V relative to the cathode and yet still conduct over
10mA? How is it possible for electrons to flow from positive to negative?
(Or if you are conventionally minded, How is possible for current to flow
from a negative to a positive?) The problem is found in the SPICE 6DJ8
model, which states:

p
k value={34.56e-6*(pwr(v(2),1.5)+pwrs(v(2),1.5))/2

This is a version of the famous Child's
three-halves-power formula for a triode's current flow. A better formula
would begin with Resistance = ...

The lesson here is not that SPICE is worthless; it's
not; in fact, it is marvelous. The lesson is garbage in often leads to
garbage out, but not always. Remember false propositions can lead to true
conclusions.* So, please do use SPICE, as I do daily, but always keep an
eye on the assumptions and the results.

Okay, back to the easier circuit the reader sent me. I
altered the part values only enough to make the circuit work in both
reality and SPICE, keeping as much of the original as I could.

Although this tube amplifier could be used as beefy
line-stage amplifier, the amplifier was designed as a tube headphone
amplifier, with an intended load of 300-ohms, such as presented by the HD-650
from Sennheiser. The 12AX7 triode provides a lot of gain and 12AU7
triode draws a healthy amount of current. The 6DJ8 output tubes also
provide some voltage gain. What is is my opinion of the circuit?

I like that the output tube's cathode resistors are not
bypassed with large-valued electrolytic capacitors, in spite of the
increased output impedance. And I like seeing the 12DW7
being used. What troubles me is the intrinsically unbalanced drive signal
that the output stage sees coming from the phase splitter. Unbalanced?
Never forget that the bottom triode's cathode is fixed at ground, whereas
the top output triode's cathode must move with the output signal. In other
words, the bottom triode's grid must see a much smaller drive signal than
the top triode; or in other words still, the top triode's grid must see a
much larger drive signal than the bottom triode.

The only time that balanced drive would obtain would be
when the load impedance is zero ohms. (Mind you, 16 ohms would be close to
zero for the 6DJ8 tubes, but 300 ohms wouldn't be.) See Blog
Number 231 for more information.

Of course, the assumption here is that the negative
feedback will save the day, which is the prevailing wisdom (or faith or
religion) of 99% of linear-electronics practice today. Does it save the
day? In SPICE, the results are not bad. At 1kHz & 3Vpk into a 300-ohm
load, the distortion is below 1% and the Fourier plots display a typically
single-ended flavor, the result of the grossly unbalanced drive of the
output stage.

In fact, many readers (and quite a few high-end audio
companies) would be happy to stop right here with this proven design and
break for lunch.

I wasn't.

The following remake looks a bit more complicated, but
not by much. The tube count remains the same, although I changed the 12DW7
to a 12AX7. Functionally, the two headphone amplifiers work identically: a
non-inverting tube headphone amplifier that uses a global feedback loop to
tame its output stage, which functions as two grounded-cathode amplifiers.
The difference lies in the details.

I had three goals: the input stage had to split the B+
noise at its plate, the phase splitter had to deliver a truly balanced
drive signal to the output tubes (regardless of the load impedance), and
the gain had to remain the same as the original design. The first goal
would improve the PSRR figure of the amplifier; the second, the distortion
figure; and the last, would make comparisons between the two circuits
fair. The last goal is an important one, but often ignored. For example,
say my version delivered much better performance, but required four times
the input signal. Would this be fair? No, as my circuit would be cheating
by providing more negative feedback than the original. So, how does my
improved version perform in SPICE? The following graph shows the results
of the shootout.

As we can see from the above graph, the distortion is
much lower in the improved version. Note how the improved circuit displays
a more classic push-pull harmonic structure, which is exactly what we
would expect from an improved drive balance between top and bottom output
tubes. The improved version also boasts a -4dB improvement in PSRR, but
its Zo is, at 30 ohms, 4 ohms higher than the easy version (my version has
less open-loop gain). In terms of equal current swings between the output
tubes, the improved version is the clear winner, as its balance is near
perfect. The easy version, on the other hand, is less so, as the following
graph shows. Note how the bottom triode is doing most of the work, which
makes sense, as it receives a much larger drive signal. The top triode
functions more like an imperfect constant-current source. Very poor
balance.

Indeed, note how the bottom triode is being grossly
overdriven and how close it is to cutting off. Once the bottom triode cuts
off, the amplifier leaves class-A operation. The improved version, in
sharp contrast, has a wider class-A window, as shown below.

Note how both output triodes have over 5mA of current
swing to go before cutting off. In other words, this amplifier can deliver
6Vpk into 300 ohms and still remain in class-A, whereas the easy version
will reach its class-A limit at a little over 3Vpk.

Both designs can be driven into class-B operation,
wherein one output device cuts off completely, while the other does all
the work. Do not forget that leaving class-A operation entails penalties,
such as poorer PSRR and increased distortion and higher Zo. By the way,
the easy version exhibits an odd anomaly, a strange departure from normal
push-pull operation: the top output triode never cuts off.

The above graph shows the output tube's current flow
under extreme output voltage swing into 300 ohms. Note how the bottom
triode cuts off completely, but the top triode lingers on, needlessly
dragging down the output. Do not become confused here. This amplifier is
still a push-pull, class-AB amplifier—just a poor amplifier. Having the
one output device remain on has bought us nothing useful, other than
advertising copy. (Last year in AudioXpress,
an article claimed that class-A meant that one output device never cutoff
in a push-pull amplifier. This is nonsense. A class-A push-pull amplifier
is one wherein both output devices never cutoff. The only reason
class-A matters to our ears is that both output devices make a
meaningful contribution to the sonic result, having one device
hang on pointlessly like a bad aftertaste is worse than useless.)

Both designs use negative feedback to improve
performance. The difference is that my improved design can forgo the
negative feedback loop; his easy version cannot. The improved version
still produces a clean output signal without a global negative feedback
loop, as the two output tubes still see a balanced drive signal because of
the 10µF capacitor that connects the output to the phase splitter, thereby
creating a balanced drive signal for both output tubes.

In this feedback-free design variation, I decided to
use a 12DW7, but with the triodes reversed: the 12AU7 section working as
the input tube and the 12AX7 triode operating in the split-load phase
splitter.

If the phase splitter's plate and cathode resistors are
changed in value, the phase splitter's input coupling capacitor can be
removed.

(As I look at it now, I see that another 6DJ8 or 6922
should be used in place of the 12DW7. Why? The12AX7 triode requires a much
greater cathode-to-plate voltage to be happy, whereas the 6DJ8's much
lower plate resistance allows it to work much better with only 50 volts
across it.)

So, how does this variation perform in SPICE? Not too
shabby, as the distortion is about 0.01% at the same 3Vpk @ 1kHz into 300
ohms. Certainly better than the easy version with a global feedback loop.

This result is amazing, when you consider that both
output triodes function as grounded-cathode amplifiers, not cathode
followers. (Imagine a pulse being applied to the output. The pulse would
be invisible to the bottom output triode's grid, so it could only counter
it with is plate resistance. The pulse would also not be seen by the top
triode's grid, as the 3µF capacitor would relay the pulse to the phase
splitter's top output, so it, too, could only offer its plate resistance
to oppose the pulse.)

In other words, this amplifier is closer to being a
current-output amplifier than a voltage-output amplifier. This aspect is
revealed in its 2300-ohm output impedance. Its PSRR is 6dB worse, coming
in at -24dB. Is this the end of the world? No, nothing like it.

If a regulated or well-filtered power supply is used,
then the slightly poorer PSRR will not be decisive. If the headphones
sound better with this amplifier, which they just might due to the high
Zo, then its high Zo is not a negative but a plus. Having just written
that, I know that many readers will be egregiously irked by the high Zo.
Well, there is a simple workaround: just drive the bottom output tube with
top output of the phase splitter and the top output tube with the phase
splitter's bottom output. This arrangement forces the output tubes to
function as cathode follower, with the resulting drop in output impedance.

With this topology in place, the Zo drops to 120 ohms.
(Bypassing the 150-ohm cathode resistors would halve that impedance.)
Since cathode-follower operation also results in lower distortion due to
degenerative feedback, what does the distortion look like for the above
circuit? Here is the Fourier graph for the above circuit. It looks fairly
single-ended, save for the large drop of the 4th harmonic.

How many have already guessed what I am about to
suggest? I wonder. Okay, no more suspense-building pauses.

What would truly be cool is using a rotary switch to
select either feedback-free topology, so we could quickly test the sonic
differences between the high and low output impedances. Wait a minute;
haven't I forgotten about the phase inversion itself polluting the sonic
results? No, I haven't. I would use a balanced input signal, which most
DACs offer these days, and which would allow preserving the phase. (Only
one of the balanced signals would be used at a time.)

I would love to hear this shootout. Understand, that
only by forgoing the global negative feedback loop, this switched setup is
possible.

The reason that I have not posted all this before was
that I have been waiting for the easy circuit's author to get back to me
with the results of his actually building and testing both versions. My
e-mail to him has bounced for the past few months. He is (or was) a
university student and maybe he is still on summer vacation or he might
have graduated. (If you read this, James, please contact me again, as I am
keen to know what results you obtained from building both versions in the
real world.)

Next Time
More tube
circuits, more PCBs.

*Here is an example of bad premises
resulting in
a true conclusion:

All tube audio equipment sounds
dreadful.

All dreadful sounding audio
equipment is expensive.

Therefore, tube audio equipment is
expensive.

Or how about an example of the fallacy of affirming the
consequence, i.e. if q then p; p obtains; therefore q is true:

If tubes sound good, then
werewolves exist.

Werewolves do exist!

Therefore, tubes sound good!

All the premises are false in the two above arguments,
but both conclusions are true, although only the first argument logically
works. These examples may seem laughably crazy, but the same structure,
the same logical topology if you will, occurs all the time in public
affairs. In fact, I have known many for whom the only logical reasoning
that they follow is the flawed logic of always affirming the consequence.
For example:

If you are a racist, then you
oppose the government's policies.

Bob opposes the government's
policies.

Therefore, Bob is a racist!

Hey, no fair, that's gotta be true; everyone one knows
that's true! Really, really? Bob may or may not be a racist, but this
argument failed to establish this conclusion. It's possible that Bob is
the least racist person living. If anything, an argument might be made
that those who instinctively and persistently see racism everywhere might
themselves be something of a racist—or is that unthinkable or is it more
like a thought crime, like imagining
the king dead? The only conclusion we could safely draw is that Bob
might be a racist, but then he might be a werewolf. In both cases, in the
absence of more evidence, I would put the silver bullets away.

In his poem "Whispers
of Immortality," T. S. Eliot states that Webster always saw "the
skull beneath the skin". God bless him, for he was rare indeed. For most,
there is only skin and makeup and tattoos and jewelry. If I have learned
anything in my over half a century of living it is that most do not see
structure or topology or schemes or plexus or schematism or theme or
motifs or figures or... It's all invisible, hiding under the surface. But
then Nietzsche wouldn't agree, as he stated in the epilogue to his Joyful
Wisdom (Gay Science) :

"Oh, those Greeks! They knew how
to live. What is required for that is to stop courageously at the
surface, the fold, the skin, to adore appearance, to believe in forms,
tones, words, in the whole Olympus of appearance. Those Greeks were
superficial—out of profundity."

I guess that I just am not that profound... Or, perhaps
I am, as he goes on to write:

173   To be
Profound and to Appear Profound. He who knows that he is
profound strives for clearness; he who would like to appear
profound to the multitude strives for obscurity. The multitude thinks
everything profound of which it cannot see the bottom;
it is so timid and goes so unwillingly into the water.

The first quote, typical of Nietzsche, doesn't exactly
mean what you might imagine it means. The second quote requires much less
head scratching. Indeed, it should be required reading for every academic
and should be posted on the masthead of every journal.

While on the topic of fallacious reasoning, forty-two
years ago, David Hackett Fisher wrote a fantastically good book, Historians'
Fallacies, wherein he listed 11 categories of historical fallacy,
each of which subdivided into many sub-fallacies.

PART I INQUIRY

Chapter I        Fallacies of
Question-Framing
Chapter
II      Fallacies of Factual Verification

Chapter III
Fallacies of Factual Significance

PART II
EXPLANATION
Chapter
IV     Fallacies of Generalization

Chapter V
Fallacies of Narration
Chapter
VI     Fallacies of Causation

Chapter VII   Fallacies of Motivation

Chapter VIII Fallacies of
Composition
Chapter
IX    Fallacies of False Analogy

PART
III ARGUMENT
Chapter
X     Fallacies of Semantical Distortion

Chapter XI   Fallacies of
Substantive Distraction

Although Fisher's book isn't perfect (he seems to have
a few axes to grind), it should be required reading for all historians and
students of history. In fact, it should be the first book any history
student reads.

Audiophile
Fallacies
Toward a Logic of Audiophile
Thought

If such a book were written about audiophile fallacies,
what would the chapter headings be? The Fallacy of equating expense
with quality, perhaps? Or, maybe, The fallacy of the audio
reviewer being granted an endless loan of the product being
reviewed.

//JRB

Kit User Guide
PDFs
Click image to download

E-mail from GlassWare
customers:

Mr Broskie,

I bought an Aikido stereo line stage
kit from you some days ago, and I received it just this Monday. I have a
few things to say about it. Firstly, I'm extremely impressed at the
quality of what I've been sent. In fact, this is the highest quality kit
I've seen anywhere, of anything. I have no idea how you managed to fit
all this stuff in under what I paid for it. Second, your shipping was
lightning-quick. Just more satisfaction in the bag, there. I wish
everyone did business like you.

Sean H.

And

Hi John,

I received the Aikido PCB today - thank you for the first rate
shipping
speed.

Wanted to let you know that this is simply the best PCB I have had in
my hands, bar none. The quality is fabulous, and your documentation is
superb. I know you do this because you love audio, but I think your
price of $39 is a bit of a giveaway! I'm sure you could charge double
and still have happy customers.

Looking forward to building the Aikido, will send some comments when
I'm done!

Thank you, regards,
Gary.

9-Pin & Octal
PCBs & Kits

High-quality, double-sided, extra thick, 2-oz traces, plated-through
holes, dual sets of resistor pads and pads for two coupling capacitors.
Stereo and mono, octal and 9-pin printed circuit boards
available.

Designed by John Broskie & Made in USA

Aikido PCBs for as little as
$20.40

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

Only $12.95
to keep track of your

tube and part collection

TCJ My-Stock DB

TCJ
My-Stock DB helps
you know just what you have, what it looks like, where it is, what it will
be used for, and what it's worth. TCJ
My-Stock DB helps
you to keep track of your heap of electronic parts. More
details.

Version
2 Improvements
List all of your parts in one
DB.
Add part Images.
One-click
web searches for part information.
Vertical and
horizontal grids.*
Create reports as PDFs.*

Graphs added 2D/3D: pie & bar.*

More powerful DB search.
Help
system added.
Editable drop-down lists for location,
projects,         brands, styles, vendors
and more.

*User definable

Download or CD ROM
Windows 95/98/Me/NT/2000/XP

For more information, please visit:

http://www.tubecad.com/2012/07/www.glass-ware.com

To
purchase , please visit our Yahoo Store

<
Back

www.tubecad.com

Copyright © 1999-2012
GlassWare
All
Rights Reserved

Next
>