Understanding ST-35

mashaffer

Super Member
I have been studying the Dynaco st35 schematic tonight as I am of a mind to do something similar with 12AX7, 12AU7 and 12DT5. The feedback scheme is a bit different than I have seen before.

attachment.php


The main FB loop I understand. The 27K and 1.3K resistor set the overall feedback and the 27pf cap provides stability I suppose by rolling off the highs. But the feedback from the PI to the VAS has me scratching my head. What is the purpose of that? I suppose that the output of the PI is being used to linearize the VAS. Never seen that before.

Also what is the deal with feeding output voltage to one of the output screens? Wouldn't that unbalance the outputs? If we are using UL and GNF why do we need/want that and how does it work?

Appreciate any input.

mike
 
Last edited:
I have been studying the Dynaco st35 schematic tonight as I am of a mind to do something similar with 12AX7, 12AU7 and 12DT5. The feedback scheme is a bit different than I have seen before.

attachment.php


The main FB loop I understand. The 27K and 1.3K resistor set the overall feedback and the 27pf cap provides stability I suppose by rolling off the highs. But the feedback from the PI to the VAS has me scratching my head. What is the purpose of that? I suppose that the output of the PI is being used to linearize the VAS. Never seen that before.

The feedback loop you note is a local POSITIVE feedback loop contained within the OA negative feedback loop. Primary purpose is to increase the gain of the input stage. It actually "de-linearizes" the stage a bit but the OA loop more than compensates and the added gain is the benefit.

Also what is the deal with feeding output voltage to one of the output screens? Wouldn't that unbalance the outputs? If we are using UL and GNF why do we need/want that and how does it work?

Appreciate any input.

mike

No output voltage is being fed to any screen. Are you referring to the 18pF cap? This cap performs a function similar to the 27pF cap but is taken directly from the primary of the OPT thus avoiding some of the problems with feedback taken from the secondary.
 
The feedback loop you note is a local POSITIVE feedback loop contained within the OA negative feedback loop. Primary purpose is to increase the gain of the input stage.

Silly question - why not (partially) bypass the 1.3 K cathode resistor with a capacitor to increase gain? What advantage does the positive feedback strategy offer?
 
You really can't bypass it, since the feedback voltage is developed across it. Positive feedback increases gain and distortion (but in a low-distortion stage - it's still less than the output stage). The extra gain increases the overall outer loop feedback, reducing overall distortion.
 
OK, I think I see what is happening at the screen. I was confusing source and destination. So they are taking some feedback from on UL tap and applying it to the VAS cathode just like the overall feedback.

The positive feedback is kind of quirky all right. Anyone know how to calculate the gain with and without the positive feedback? Assuming that the extra gain is actually needed there may be other ways worth considering such as using a mu follower as the VAS. And gain may be an issue in my case as I think that the 12DT5 needs a bit more voltage swing than the 6BQ5 though I am not certain about that.

mike
 
OK, I think I see what is happening at the screen. I was confusing source and destination. So they are taking some feedback from on UL tap and applying it to the VAS cathode just like the overall feedback.

The positive feedback is kind of quirky all right. Anyone know how to calculate the gain with and without the positive feedback? Assuming that the extra gain is actually needed there may be other ways worth considering such as using a mu follower as the VAS. And gain may be an issue in my case as I think that the 12DT5 needs a bit more voltage swing than the 6BQ5 though I am not certain about that.

mike

While it is possible to calculate the gain of an amp with nested feedback loops, the exercise is not trivial esp for an amp design like this one where there are many unknowns such as open loop stage gains and so on. From a practical perspective it will be easier to simply measure the amp and go from there.

I'm not sure why Dyna chose the circuit design they did with the ST35. As you know, the amp uses a 12DW7 as the one and only input/PI tube. This being a dual dissimilar triode. For just about every other design they released, inc the ST35's cousin, the SCA35, they used a version of a pentode input stage driving a triode PI. Pentodes generally have gain to spare. So....if one chooses to dump the all-triode/positive feedback scheme, one will either be considering pentode input stages or an additional tube someplace. Not that there's anything wrong with that.....
 
I'm not big on circuit boards, but DIYtube offers a great one for the 35. It uses a 12AX7 and a 12AU7, has individual bias adjustment for each output tube, adjustable feedback, and is easy to add a triode/pentode switch to. Last time I bought one I think they were under 50 bucks. I don't think the original circuit can do the Z565 iron justice.
 
I think there wil be plenty of gain, even with the greater grid swing required by the 12DT5. Worth a try! 12AB5 is another common tube in that footprint - it's close to 6V6 characteristics.
 
The neat thing about this design is that the basic circuit with just the overall FB can be knocked up p2p quite easily and then one can add other bits as needed.

mike
 
Actually this circuit is fairly easy to understand, as long as you don't get into the more intricate part of circuit design, which might require an EE degree or two. As been pointed out, the 18p and 27p caps are there mostly for phase correction, they don't contribute much to amp's gain in audio band. If the open loop gain is infinity, the closed loop gain is set up by the two feedback resistors, in this case, (27k+1.3k)/1.3k which is roughly 22X. For a full 15 watts power output on 16 ohm tab (where the feedback is taking from), the output voltage is roughly 16V RMS, which translates into the amp's sensitity of 0.7V RMS. Obviously, a tube amp doesn't have infinite open loop gain, which simply means that it just needs a little more input voltage to get the same full output. The SCA-35 has a 82K over 560 ohm feedback network, which translates into roughly 150X closed loop gain. Why almost 10X more gain than ST-35? It is because of the tone control circuit before the gain stage that has about 20 db attenuation when in flat position.

The overall gain of the amp is pretty much determined by these two resistors. The more gain each stage has, the more overall feedback the amp has, hence the lower distortion, until the amp becomes unstable. For a typical tube amp with phase shift and resonance peaks in OPT, fairly small filter/bypass caps and all that, the practical upper limit for global feedback is about 20db. In the ST-35, the first triode has about 50x gain with an unbypassed cathode resistor, the push-pull stage has around 1.5-3x gain to the 16 ohm tab, depending on load impedance match and tube age. That gives roughly 10-15db global feedback. So there is a need for a little more open loop gain to get more feedback to produce better specs.

That leads to the "positive feedback" between the first gain stage and the phase splitter. One can always argue that the extra gain is cancelled by the global feedback, so is the extra distortions induced by the positive feedback, and that the push-pull output stage might have more distortions than the 1st gain stage, so higher gain in the first stage means more feedback for the PP stage, and the net effect is reduction in overall distortion. Obviously,this is just one way of getting some extra gain. You can also get the same effect with partially bypassed cathode resistor as long as you set up the feedback accordingly. Knowing how coporate America works, I tend to think that this is the lowest cost solution that can be implemented on that tiny circuit board, for example, a smaller 0.22uf cap might be one cent or two cheaper (and more reliable in those days) than a relatively large 50uF bypass cap and requires less circuit board real estate (smaller circuit board means smaller chassis and less metal work). Since the 1st triode has a mu of 100, as long as the "positive feedback" is less than 1/100 (in this case 1.3K/150K is less than 100), the circuit will not oscillate.

Since you are going to do something "similar", you obviously don't have to copy exact. Just make sure you know the cause and effect when making changes. As it is, this circuit should have enough gain to drive 12DT5, even without the positive feedback, obviously at the cost of lower overall feedback.
 
I was contemplating this some more today. I was thinking about increasing the first stage gain and linearity by using a mu follower. But that works best with plenty of B+. In fact my reading seems to indicate that the 12AX7 in general seems to work best with a generous B+. It occurs to me that a cathodyne doesn't mind a goodly supply of EMF either.

Rewind to yesterday as I was perusing Allen Wright's web site. He claims that his power amp output stage is a third type of output after SE and PP. In looking at his description it appears to essentially be a CS loaded PP design much like the LTP phase inverter we all know. The idea seems to be that nailing down the total current causes the change in current through one tube to be inversely mirrored by the current through the other tube thus reducing distortion.

My instinct toward simplicity got me to thinking. Why could we not approximate a current source using a large common cathode resistor (lightbulb?). A large enough resistor should give us a reasonable approximation of a current source and where it deviates from that ideal may not be a bad thing if it makes for a softer overload. I see a couple of possibilities for biasing that cold mitigate the need for matched tubes. Just because there is a cathode resistor does not mean that we could not still use fixed bias if we wanted to. Or we could use separate variable cathode bias resistors exclusive to each tube but feeding the top of the common cathode resistor.

To make this work we would need either a bi-polar power supply or a large uni-polar one. So for example if we take the normal 300-0-300 tranny and use a bridge rectifier (maybe using a pair of high current damper diodes and a pair of SS rectifiers) we can get a 600V supply. Could even use a smaller tranny such as 225-0-225 or maybe 250. This would be ample to supply the suggested output stage and leave enough to keep plenty of voltage on both tubes in the mu-follower. One down side I can see is the need for robust PS caps and chokes voltage wise. For the mu follower I envision a 12AU7 on top.

Am I all wet here?

mike

P.S. Obviously efficiency is not a requirement for this design. :)
 
Last edited:
It's not totally clear to me what you're proposing here but it sounds like you want to stick a current source under the combined cathodes of your PP output tubes. If so, others have gone before you so you can benefit from their experiences. This topic was covered in excruciating detail quite some time ago @ AA. Just search there and with Google using "Compact Amp" as key words. FYI, the "compact amp" is a DIY design from the middle of the last century that uses the output tubes as combined PI and finals. i.e. One input triode and two PI/output pentodes for the entire amp. The design has a cult following esp when exotic upgrades are applied...probably well beyond what the author of the original article envisioned. There was even a website or two devoted to the compact amp and how it could be improved. Improvements inc subbing various forms of current sources for the cathode resistors. Testimonials abound for all sorts of schemes inc relatively fancy cascode CCSs using depletion mode MOSFETS, the LM317 voltage reg chip in CCS mode!!! and even the use of a choke to provide CCS effect for audio while DCR of the choke provides for resistive cathode bias. In this amp, the CCS provided for much better PI balance as well as class A operation of the finals. In your design, the CCS will most likely force class A at all times since you plan a separate PI.

Regarding the use of a negative supply and a larger than normal cathode resistor to simulate a CCS, it's certainly one way to do it. But if you dig into the topic of active CCSs you'll find that the active devices are much closer to an ideal CCS, at least in theory and require very little "overhead" voltage.

Also be careful when using a PT designed for centertapped full wave service with a bridge or other circuit to get double normal voltage. The PT is rated for a specific VA output so if you double the voltage, you at least half the current capability. You might assume that winding insultion will be up to the higher voltage but maybe not.
 
Actually toward the end there you hit on what I am thinking about. An output stage much like the original LTP where a large resistor is used instead of CCS. Not necessarily aiming for the lowest possible distortion but an reasonable improvement while providing a little extra B+ for the earlier stages.

You bring up a good point about transformer ratings. I suspect that insulation is probably up to the task up to about 500V or so. Good reminder on the current rating being derated also.

Another topology that has intrigued me is Boozehound's choke loaded LTP. What I will probably end up doing though is probably something rather Williamson like.

Found the ultra compact club. Interesting approach. It looks like they are running without any gNFB.

mike
 
Back
Top Bottom