Videokarma.org

Go Back   Videokarma.org TV - Video - Vintage Television & Radio Forums > General Off Topic Forums

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-08-2018, 01:14 PM
benman94's Avatar
benman94 benman94 is offline
Resident Lunatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 1,190
Why was the 6AS7 dropped as a TV damper?

The 6AS7 ultimately ended up being a tube without a purpose after TV manufacturers (including RCA) stopped using it as a TV damper, after RCA stopped promoting it as an audio output valve to which it was very well suited (arguably better for high fidelity applications than the 6L6), and stopped being used as a pass element in regulated power supplies.

It was in all probability shunned by RCA for audio use because it would directly compete with the 6L6 which RCA had been promoting since 1936. Still, a push pull 6AS7G with cathode bias could produce 10 watts or so at only 2 percent total harmonic distortion, right in line with a pair of cathode biased 6L6s while remaining about as efficient as a pair of 2A3s, 6B4Gs, or 6A5Gs. Add in that the distortion characteristics of a triode are much more benign, and the plate resistance so much lower, than the 6L6 and the 6AS7G looks rather attractive by comparison. The grid swing necessary is ungodly, but it is possible to drive a 6AS7 in push pull with itself to clipping with a single 6SN7 R-C coupled to the 6AS7 grids.

Take a look at this schematic from RCA's Ham Tips, circa September-October of 1948:

http://n4trb.com/AmateurRadio/RCA_Ha...amtips0803.pdf

Also see this speech amplifier developed in the year prior:

http://n4trb.com/AmateurRadio/RCA_Ha...amtips0704.pdf

Clearly the 6AS7 works admirably in audio service; RCA didn't abandon it as an audio tube for any practical reason relating to the valve itself.

In pass element service, the 6AS7 was simply surpassed by even higher perveance tubes. Why use two or three 6AS7s when one of the newer types will suffice?

But in TV damper service, I see no logical reason to choose a 5V4G or any of the dedicated 6 volt damper diodes over the 6AS7. Any ideas?

Last edited by benman94; 02-08-2018 at 01:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-08-2018, 07:09 PM
Electronic M's Avatar
Electronic M Electronic M is offline
M is for Memory
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pewaukee/Delafield Wi
Posts: 14,758
Price perhaps? There was a good bit more metal on the plates than your standard 5V4...I have a hard time imagining a 6AS7 as being cheaper.

Also, your forgetting IMO the most interesting audio application of the part: Output transformerless Amplification. I designed/built an OTL amp based on those tubes several years ago...It has been my main amp ever since (it is that good).
__________________
Tom C.

Zenith: The quality stays in EVEN after the name falls off!
What I want. --> http://www.videokarma.org/showpost.p...62&postcount=4
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-08-2018, 07:45 PM
jr_tech's Avatar
jr_tech jr_tech is offline
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,510
What sets used the 6AS7G as a damper? I would like to see if it was just connected as a diode or if the grid control actually served some purpose.

Sure, a diode or double diode would be cheaper to fabricate than a double triode. Bean counters usually win.

jr
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-08-2018, 07:58 PM
dieseljeep dieseljeep is offline
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by jr_tech View Post
What sets used the 6AS7G as a damper? I would like to see if it was just connected as a diode or if the grid control actually served some purpose.

Sure, a diode or double diode would be cheaper to fabricate than a double triode. Bean counters usually win.

jr
I don't remember any other set using it for a damper but the first post-war GE, model 801???
IIRC, the RCA 648*** projection set used one as a damper.
I just scrapped a mid-60's Techtronics that had one. I is a "G" type branded RCA, with a mid-60's code date.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-08-2018, 09:43 PM
benman94's Avatar
benman94 benman94 is offline
Resident Lunatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 1,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electronic M View Post
Price perhaps? There was a good bit more metal on the plates than your standard 5V4...I have a hard time imagining a 6AS7 as being cheaper.

Also, your forgetting IMO the most interesting audio application of the part: Output transformerless Amplification. I designed/built an OTL amp based on those tubes several years ago...It has been my main amp ever since (it is that good).
Well I didn't mention it because RCA never officially sanctioned the 6AS7 as an OTL amp output tube. Still, it is an interesting application.

How stable is your OTL? I've toyed with the idea of building one, a variation of the Dickie and Macovski circuit from 1954, but I really don't like the idea of running the 6AS7s fixed bias, nor do I like the idea of having B+ at the speaker terminals...
Reply With Quote
Audiokarma
  #6  
Old 02-08-2018, 10:23 PM
Electronic M's Avatar
Electronic M Electronic M is offline
M is for Memory
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pewaukee/Delafield Wi
Posts: 14,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by benman94 View Post
Well I didn't mention it because RCA never officially sanctioned the 6AS7 as an OTL amp output tube. Still, it is an interesting application.

How stable is your OTL? I've toyed with the idea of building one, a variation of the Dickie and Macovski circuit from 1954, but I really don't like the idea of running the 6AS7s fixed bias, nor do I like the idea of having B+ at the speaker terminals...
One of the RCA tube manuals does give a 6AS7 OTL schematic/parts list...

I went with a reverse Futterman circuit with some negative feedback in the driver stage. With proper adjustment, I was able to achieve almost no DC voltage across the speaker terminals (someday I may rework the bais adjustment circuit to require less finesse). After a year of heavy service, I rechecked the bias balance and tube emission and there did not seem to be a change. My amp is a 2/4 channel with the rear outputs AC drive path and feedback switched over to parallel with the front when in stereo mode. I was very conservative with DC quiescent current in the outputs...I expect output tube life to be close to heater life. My output rails are only +/-60V so there is not much more risk to the speakers in the event of a rail short than some transistor amps.
I built that amp during a summer break in college when buying the outputs at $5 a pop, the chassis sheet metal, wood, and pots (most everything else was from my junk box) was a great stretch of my budget. The power supply evolved with the amp...Eventually utilizing SS regulators for nearly all B+ and B- rails. I could not afford the right power trans so I engineered around the junk box transformers I had....That box has every valid internal mounting point utilized to it's utmost....Probably weighs as much as an RCA 630.
__________________
Tom C.

Zenith: The quality stays in EVEN after the name falls off!
What I want. --> http://www.videokarma.org/showpost.p...62&postcount=4
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-09-2018, 08:51 AM
benman94's Avatar
benman94 benman94 is offline
Resident Lunatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 1,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electronic M View Post
One of the RCA tube manuals does give a 6AS7 OTL schematic/parts list...
They show a transformer coupled 6AS7 amplifier in RC-16. Mind sharing which tube manual shows it in the schematic section? I highly suspect it is just the Dickie and Macovski circuit I mentioned. D.P. Dickie worked for either RCA or Pacific Mercury out on the West coast. My Uncle Harry golfed with him.

I only ever recall seeing that circuit in Audio Engineering and Orr's handbook however.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-12-2018, 06:49 PM
benman94's Avatar
benman94 benman94 is offline
Resident Lunatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 1,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electronic M View Post
One of the RCA tube manuals does give a 6AS7 OTL schematic/parts list...

I went with a reverse Futterman circuit with some negative feedback in the driver stage. With proper adjustment, I was able to achieve almost no DC voltage across the speaker terminals (someday I may rework the bais adjustment circuit to require less finesse). After a year of heavy service, I rechecked the bias balance and tube emission and there did not seem to be a change. My amp is a 2/4 channel with the rear outputs AC drive path and feedback switched over to parallel with the front when in stereo mode. I was very conservative with DC quiescent current in the outputs...I expect output tube life to be close to heater life. My output rails are only +/-60V so there is not much more risk to the speakers in the event of a rail short than some transistor amps.
I built that amp during a summer break in college when buying the outputs at $5 a pop, the chassis sheet metal, wood, and pots (most everything else was from my junk box) was a great stretch of my budget. The power supply evolved with the amp...Eventually utilizing SS regulators for nearly all B+ and B- rails. I could not afford the right power trans so I engineered around the junk box transformers I had....That box has every valid internal mounting point utilized to it's utmost....Probably weighs as much as an RCA 630.
You've inspired me to try my hand at a Futterman style OTL. It would be nice to stop forking over so much money to Brian Sowter at Sowter Transformer...

With +60/-60 rail voltages I would feel a hell of a lot better about such a topology. The one 6AS7G amp. I'm familiar with uses +140/-140 volt rails. That makes me nervous and for good reason. It also calls for a potentially lethal hot chassis design. No power transformer, no output transformer, hell, no inductors at all! A bit scary to have something like that plugged right into the wall...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-12-2018, 07:57 PM
Electronic M's Avatar
Electronic M Electronic M is offline
M is for Memory
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pewaukee/Delafield Wi
Posts: 14,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by benman94 View Post
You've inspired me to try my hand at a Futterman style OTL. It would be nice to stop forking over so much money to Brian Sowter at Sowter Transformer...

With +60/-60 rail voltages I would feel a hell of a lot better about such a topology. The one 6AS7G amp. I'm familiar with uses +140/-140 volt rails. That makes me nervous and for good reason. It also calls for a potentially lethal hot chassis design. No power transformer, no output transformer, hell, no inductors at all! A bit scary to have something like that plugged right into the wall...
If you swap the grid coupling caps and put them on the opposite output tube grids from the Futterman design (IIRC this was the called the Technics variant) you will have better output impedance match to low impedances. Back a few years when I was working on mine I found a site that proved it mathematically...Wish I still had the link.

OTLs are IMO the best of both worlds in amps; combining and balancing the redeeming traits of the characteristic sounds of tube and SS gear.
__________________
Tom C.

Zenith: The quality stays in EVEN after the name falls off!
What I want. --> http://www.videokarma.org/showpost.p...62&postcount=4
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-09-2018, 08:46 PM
init4fun's Avatar
init4fun init4fun is offline
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electronic M View Post
Price perhaps? There was a good bit more metal on the plates than your standard 5V4...I have a hard time imagining a 6AS7 as being cheaper.
I like Tom's idea , the cheaper the better for the Bean counters and a kinda big triode VS a smaller diode wouldn't fly . While the TV's screens themselves kept getting bigger , smaller & cheaper circuitry was the driving force behind such design changes since the beginning of mass market electronics . Yep , price gets my vote .
Reply With Quote
Audiokarma
  #11  
Old 02-08-2018, 09:39 PM
benman94's Avatar
benman94 benman94 is offline
Resident Lunatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 1,190
  • GE 801 as dieseljeep mentioned, as well as the 802, 803, and the 901 projection set
  • All of the RCA projection sets from 1947-1949 using the PTU-1 projection unit
  • Philco 48-1000 chassis (including all of the cabinet variations, etc),
  • Philco 48-2500 projection set
  • DuMont RA-101 sets in all of the cabinet variations
  • DuMont RA-102 in both cabinet variations
  • That weird blonde Remington-Rembrandt set uses it
  • And, if my memory is correct, at least one Farnsworth from that same '46-'49 period uses it.

I'm sure perusing Rider's Vol 1 would turn up others.

Last edited by benman94; 02-08-2018 at 09:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-08-2018, 09:48 PM
old_tv_nut's Avatar
old_tv_nut old_tv_nut is offline
See yourself on Color TV!
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rancho Sahuarita
Posts: 7,184
This treatise
http://www.earlytelevision.org/damper.html
indicates that the grids were used to effect a a linearity adjustment.
__________________
www.bretl.com
Old TV literature, New York World's Fair, and other miscellany
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-08-2018, 10:33 PM
jr_tech's Avatar
jr_tech jr_tech is offline
VideoKarma Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_tv_nut View Post
This treatise
http://www.earlytelevision.org/damper.html
indicates that the grids were used to effect a a linearity adjustment.
Interesting reading! I also looked up several of the sets mentioned above and indeed see the grids in a linearly adjustment circuit... I have never encountered a set with this linearity control configuration. Thanks for posting!

jr
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-08-2018, 10:02 PM
old_tv_nut's Avatar
old_tv_nut old_tv_nut is offline
See yourself on Color TV!
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rancho Sahuarita
Posts: 7,184
I also wonder if it was dropped simply because greater inverse plate voltage and peak current were needed as screens got larger.
__________________
www.bretl.com
Old TV literature, New York World's Fair, and other miscellany
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-09-2018, 09:04 PM
benman94's Avatar
benman94 benman94 is offline
Resident Lunatic
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 1,190
Price comes down with increased manufacturing. It is possible that the 6AS7G could have dropped in price if RCA had cranked them out in greater quantity. The 6L6 was initially a somewhat expensive tube and was notoriously difficult to built in production quantities. RCA worked out the kinks and by the late 40s it was about $0.50 to $1.00.

Of course ramping up production on the 6AS7G would have required greater demand, which would have required manufacturers, or an insane number of amateurs, to actually use it. It seems to me the 6AS7G was the right tube, at the wrong time, or rather, the wrong price.

As far as audio use goes, RCA missed a golden opportunity to lock down the Hi-Fi market early on by really pushing that 10 watter they had designed. If they had marketed that design and the 6AS7G in the same manner that the Williamson and KT66 were promoted in England and Australia, and subsequently the US, I strongly suspect the Williamson wouldn't have been nearly so popular in this country. But RCA was a corporate giant interested in selling radios and television sets. While they were competent at building excellent Hi-Fi equipment, it wasn't their bread and butter, and certainly wasn't on their radar in any real sense...
Reply With Quote
Audiokarma
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:11 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©Copyright 2012 VideoKarma.org, All rights reserved.