Triode?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 2426 times.

pubul57

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 50
Triode?
« on: 6 Mar 2008, 03:29 am »
Roger, since you can obviously build with any topology you choose, why did you choose to use Ultralinear instead of Triode in your work on the RM9s?

Roger A. Modjeski

Re: Triode?
« Reply #1 on: 11 Mar 2008, 04:34 am »
Ultralinear, as the name implies, is more linear than triode. General electric published curves with typical screen taps that illustrated this. I wanted to get 100 watts (I got 120 watts) out of a quartet of EL-34's. At 50 Watts per pair that surpassed the typical 35 watts per pair that Dynaco, Marantz and others obtained. I biased the amp in such a way to get 10,000 hours tube life which has now become a benchmark, though one must be wary of those who state their tube life based on other people's amplifiers.

This brings me to report a similar situation with Chinese made fluorescent lamps which are rapidly coming to the surface in our energy strapped world. Here in California we can get them 4 for one dollar thanks to Southern California Edison who subsidizes the cost to these ridiculous levels. The Chinese have decided that all fluorescent lamps last 10,000 hours because that is the typical lifetime of a well made Sylvania or General Electric lamp. Sylvania in particular worked hard to achieve this lifetime through years of chemistry and lifetime tests. The Chinese claim the same lifetime though their's is much shorter. I have had some go out in 10 hours and none of mine have lasted 10,000 hours. In another lamp the electronic ballast failed, melted the plastic and could have caused a fire.

pubul57

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 50
Re: Triode?
« Reply #2 on: 11 Mar 2008, 06:39 pm »
I can see the reason for using Ultra Linear if 100 watts is your goal. But what if your goal were 30 or 40 watts? Would you still use ultra linear? The current voices in the crowd suggest that triode operation is the cat's meow, but that seems to be a theory. Is that marketing hype, or is their something to the triode approach that is appealing, especially when you don't need or require much power? I'm not talking single digit SETs, but pentodes connected for triode operation.

Roger A. Modjeski

Re: Triode?
« Reply #3 on: 12 Mar 2008, 05:36 am »
There are many factors that influence my designs. I offer amplifiers that cover a broad range of uses and tastes. I am currently working on a triode version of the RM-200 which will produce about 40 watts per channel with reasonable distortion, damping and no feedback.

bullwnkl999

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 10
Re: Triode?
« Reply #4 on: 18 Mar 2008, 04:07 am »
I am currently working on a triode version of the RM-200 which will produce about 40 watts per channel with reasonable distortion, damping and no feedback.

Hi, Roger -

Will the RM-200 triode version be a true triode, or a pentode in triode operation (despite your caveat in another string?)  I assume it will be push-pull...  Will the original RM-200 be modifiable, or would the cost not justify the procedure?

Thanks!  Mark

Roger A. Modjeski

Re: Triode?
« Reply #5 on: 25 Mar 2008, 06:49 am »
The triode unit will use the same KT-88 output tubes connected at triodes. Anything else would be very expensive. I can do the mod for $900.