amp designers aint what they used to be?

Everyday chat. No political or religious discussions.

Moderators: VelvetGeorge, BUG

Post Reply
crumb
Senior Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:47 am

amp designers aint what they used to be?

Post by crumb » Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:25 am

ok so crumb has been travelling, i've had a sojourn off to the marshall amp forum, and hehe have had quite the time.
Now, what I did yesterday was cut and paste a forum post from these threads from over here, to over there..and I hope that is ok to do.
In a certain thread from over there, which is still active..' 4X12 8ohms and 4X12 16ohms question ?'..... the scent of battle attracted what i though was some sort of trout perhaps...but to the regulars over there at marshallforum he is nothing short of a deity..some sort of god ...anyway good people..what i want to do here is show you all what goes on in those halls over there, and draw attention to the reason perhaps marshall amplifier design may have sort of..dropped off for a while.

what i was doing was showing the good people over there that voltage doubling was actually used in amplifiers made from the start of those twin bridge rec plexis from 66 1/2..to 1981.
As you all know here, or may know, you have some very clever people posting here, and i was vibing on a particular post by a man here who calls himself 'flemingras'...if this is not permitted, pls inform me...
Anyway flemingras very clearly demonstrates that voltage doubling exists in these amps, and yet doesnt exist at the snip of one wire.
ill refer to his post in the order that it appeared over there.

the deity, the god over there is called ' santiell'.
i dont know who he is , i do know hes some sort of fucking idiot, as evidence by these thread posts from over there.

not only did he try and fool the good people over there and tell them that in no way does the design incorporate any kind of voltage doubling ( put those diodes and caps together like marshall do in the full wave bridge voltage doubler and people, you're gonna get voltage doubling)...he refused to explain away a certain post i made in the thread ( the money shot )..but if you read carefully..hes straight out lied , attempting a very cheap bluff...and then lied again! and then attempted a diversion...and then tried to intimidate me by telling he used to design amps for marshall! - all the while staying silent on the little fact that the centre tap has its voltage doubled courtesy of the way those amps are wired up, refused to address it, completely ignored any requests to do so..said he was ' sorry'...sure Rat..sure.

lets examine the events of yesterday, ill simply cut and paste, and put some limited commentary as well

santiell- I guess you guys are arguing about 'Internet semantics', one of those circuits that people call incorrectly.
Technically it is not a voltage doubler, just a pretty standard full wave rectifier, either bridge or centre tapped, but for whatever reason people call it voltage doubler when it is not.
Voltage doublers are used for example in pretty much every switched mode power supply with the 120/230V selector to double the 120V to 240 internally. They, and also voltage multipliers, are used sometimes for increasing the bias range or powering tubes in pedals and the likes but I'm not aware of them being used for the HT in tube amps.


pls note at this point, the deity god doesnt even realise that musicman and whole bunch of other tube amps utilise voltage doubling for h.t



crumb- Technically, it IS a voltage doubler santiall, and frankly im surprised to see you type that out.

The argument that the naysayers present, in terms just a little more expanded than you've outlined here ( and which consists of something more than a vague reference to stacked burgers..what did the other one type out..stacked burgers??) is that without that centre tap which balances the voltage out equally ( and with the addition of some bleeder resistors)..the outer taps would simply feed a full wave bridge to provide the high voltage dc.
to blow your argument out of the water, and the argument of mickeydog5 - the full wave bridge doubler doubles the centre tap voltage

So, because the centre tap IS there, and because the bleeder resistors ARENT and because the voltage doubler doubles the centre tap voltage ( hehe which = b+ )...you're wrong.

Thankyou.


- santiall said: ↑
but I'm not aware of them being used for the HT in tube amps.

crumb- you are now.

fender used it
Musicman use it.
Marshall use it.
Vase use it.
Holden wasp use it.
Eminar use it.
Valvetone uses it.
Lenard uses it.
Fisonic uses it.
Baez uses it.

- and theyre just some? of the guitar tube amps..the hi-fi guys love voltage doubling. FYI these other brands utilise voltage doubling in the more conventional way, without a centre tap.( with the exception of the fender UL bassman ten, same as marshall voltage doubling)

crumb - if someone here can express why i am wrong, and actually use a reason, or some terminology..then pls do so.

Thankyou.

spacerockerWell-Known Member

You know who he is? right?
spacerocker, Today at 12:37 PM

crumb - i know what he typed out, thats all i know.
seems like a nice guy.
spacerocker, just get ready for a result youre not expecting, thats my advice to you.

santiell - As I said this seems to be a semantics problem but that there is an unused doesn't change that it is a full wave rectifier. A voltage doubler is a completely different circuit (just Google and you'll see, they don't even have a centre tap... ) but doesn't really matter, Im perfectly OK being wrong if you state so and I won't argue at all, it isn't worth. It's fine, sorry to disappoint you.
Today at 1:31 PM


hehe here we see the god telling me to google! like...his fucking degree was either bogus or hes wiped his ass with it and hes telling me to google


- crumb , why argue? if we are two men discussing something in a forum, why not just take a look at post 86 and break it down a little for us?
I'm afraid, for at me at least your response is a little ....light...for someone who seems to be so revered in here.

The observation for example, that once the centre tap is taken out of the equation we are left with a ' normal' bridge rectifier should have been, i would have thought the FIRST observation in relation to this little riddle of ours here, its actually fascinating to me..isn't it to anyone here?

The fact that TWO methods of rectifying voltage can run concurrently ( hehe i love this shit ) is absolutely jaw droppingly interesting to anyone who realises it.

I'll admit i'm a little curious, santiall, at how you refer to the problem as one of ' semantics' yet leave it at that..where is the play on words exactly..wait..not even exactly..just remotely?

the semantics element comes from people who say that because the centre tap will provide doubled voltage due to the voltage doubling network of diodes and caps attached to it, that by simply removing that centre tap, at that point, H.T is derived from the remainder of the circuit comprising a simply full wave doubler.

There is a highlighted sentence in post 86, that I would have thought would have been the first thing that was addressed by you, but instead..i see " and I won't argue at all, it isn't worth. It's fine, sorry to disappoint you"

Instead of arguing, why dont you simply address the highlighted sentence in post
86?

Hehe doesnt anyone here realise that by configuring diodes and caps like this, youre going to get doubled voltage somewhere?

right there people...to unmask the bluff thats been put on ( you, not me ) just decipher that very simply network of diodes and caps haha

i note the response from marshall themselves...youve got to be fucking kidding right? as if they were ever going to know in the first place, the people that converted that bassman to a bluesbreaker probably died years ago, they wouldnt have a clue except what cloths, vinyls and colors are good for next years models.

Ok, santiall has told me 'to google'
so lets go and take a look at what another gentleman in another forum who isnt afraid to let it all hang out has to say on the matter.

i wish we could have discussions like this here, anyway..enjoy.

taken from metroamp forums

authored by a fellow called 'flemingras'

In regards to the "voltage doubler" circuit...that as has been said before is a matter of semantics. If you look at it as if you're doubling the center tap voltage, then yeah you could say it's a voltage doubler. But hooking up across the full winding without the center tap connected will give you the same end result, but you'll have to install bleeder resistors across the first stage filter caps to keep the voltage on the caps balanced. This circuit is more of a full wave voltage balancer as it is used to allow each half of the HT secondary to charge the first filter caps instead of using bleeder resistors to do it. Since each half of the HT secondary is 1/2 the voltage of the full HT secondary, you get 1/2 the voltage on each cap and each cap on the first filtering stage sees the same voltage to prevent one from going overvoltage.





crumb -
again, the centre tap has not been removed, the bleeder resistors never put in...and B+ appears courtesy of the voltage doubled centre tap.


santiall -
As I said this seems to be a semantics problem but that there is an unused doesn't change that it is a full wave rectifier. A voltage doubler is a completely different circuit (just Google and you'll see, they don't even have a centre tap... ) but doesn't really matter, Im perfectly OK being wrong if you state so and I won't argue at all, it isn't worth. It's fine, sorry to disappoint you.


- crumb ... why argue? if we are two men discussing something in a forum, why not just take a look at post 86 and break it down a little for us?
I'm afraid, for at me at least your response is a little ....light...for someone who seems to be so revered in here.

The observation for example, that once the centre tap is taken out of the equation we are left with a ' normal' bridge rectifier should have been, i would have thought the FIRST observation in relation to this little riddle of ours here, its actually fascinating to me..isn't it to anyone here?

The fact that TWO methods of rectifying voltage can run concurrently ( hehe i love this shit ) is absolutely jaw droppingly interesting to anyone who realises it.

I'll admit i'm a little curious, santiall, at how you refer to the problem as one of ' semantics' yet leave it at that..where is the play on words exactly..wait..not even exactly..just remotely?

the semantics element comes from people who say that because the centre tap will provide doubled voltage due to the voltage doubling network of diodes and caps attached to it, that by simply removing that centre tap, at that point, H.T is derived from the remainder of the circuit comprising a simply full wave doubler.

There is a highlighted sentence in post 86, that I would have thought would have been the first thing that was addressed by you, but instead..i see " and I won't argue at all, it isn't worth. It's fine, sorry to disappoint you"

Instead of arguing, why dont you simply address the highlighted sentence in post 86?

Hehe doesnt anyone here realise that by configuring diodes and caps like this, youre going to get doubled voltage somewhere?

right there people...to unmask the bluff thats been put on ( you, not me ) just decipher that very simply network of diodes and caps haha

i note the response from marshall themselves...youve got to be fucking kidding right? as if they were ever going to know in the first place, the people that converted that bassman to a bluesbreaker probably died years ago, they wouldnt have a clue except what cloths, vinyls and colors are good for next years models.



santiall- John, I'm in the Internet since pretty much it started with the news groups in the 90s and experience tells me that 'arguing' online is a waste of time plus I feel you are looking for controversy and have a strong opinion that won't change hence my 'light' response. I'm not here to prove you wrong nor right, I have zero interest on that. I replied to this thread with my view and that's it. You claimed I'm wrong and that's also fine with me. Just a forum, not a competition of right and wrong.

Again, sorry to disappoint.

PS1, semantics refers to 'Internet terms' like calling a full wave rectifier a voltage doubler, cathode biasing class A, etc.

PS2, food for thought. If I have two taps do I have a voltage tripler? Many transformers there have secondaries with multiple taps... and if I just look at 1/3rd of the secundary then I should have something like 3 times that voltage multiplied by 1.4142, isn't it?
santiall, Today at 6:27 AMReport


hehe look now people...see the attempt to divert? at this point he was well fucked and he knew it.
Also

crumb - lets just focus on the current issue , santiall..shall we?
why waste words? lets get to the bottom of this, and use all electrickery words.


hehe now look at the guy trying to intimidate me ...he's out of options
Also, fearful of the ' semantics' comment he's already made, and which he well knows is the argument used in this debate..he avoids it altogether and just puts on his bullshitting hat once again !

santiell responding to this sheer idiot..this troll under the bridge called 'mickeydog5 'when he sent his god a schematic of an amp

mickeydg5 said ... ↑
I found this. You are right and they seem to follow in line except no vacuum tube.
No one copy this since it is protected.

santiell- Yup, that's actually one of the first amplifiers I designed for Marshall
santiall, Today at 6:37 AMReport


he may have worked for marshall..designing plastic feet.


crumb- Ok, thats good, youre an amp designer..lets talk the talk, if you want to.

If you DONT want to, then thats ok too.

Thankyou.



- and then a couple of hours pass without the living god or I making any further posts and then i was banned for challenging the living god deity of marshall forum.





Just some damn good entertainment for you all.
Last edited by crumb on Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:05 am, edited 5 times in total.

crumb
Senior Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:47 am

Re: amp designers aint what they used to be?

Post by crumb » Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:31 pm

more entertainment...

it seems the deity god has descended to address the faithful minions once again ..
( the terrified rat is sitting there refreshing his screen every four seconds..hehe)
it seems that ...even though he hasnt said it quite yet..these marshalls actually DO use voltage doubling....but because its not in his textbooks..( its simply an abstract variation...textbooks cant list all of them) he wont label it as such...if it looks like a terrified rat...if it acts like terrified rat...it IS a terrified rat.( just like voltage doubling itself)
The second he admits the circuitry actually creates voltage doubling in front of these monkeys (there actually is a bright soul amongst them...Nik..)...he loses.
Note he AGAIN states his status and credentials to his worshippers....just in case anyone else gets any ideas and uses his brain outside the scope of normal internet chinese whispers....he may have a masters degree ...maybe if he went back to school he could try for a PHD? ...pfft...with a thesis on a 'new' form of voltage doubling.

User avatar
neikeel
Senior Member
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:31 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: amp designers aint what they used to be?

Post by neikeel » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:46 pm

Please read this and report on your thoughts Mr Hammond:

http://www.valvewizard.co.uk/psu.html
Neil

crumb
Senior Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:47 am

Re: amp designers aint what they used to be?

Post by crumb » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:57 pm

neil,

If i remember correctly, it was in fact you that was the first to challenge the notion that voltage doubling isn't utilised at a certain ' other forum' on a certain ( different) thread...and here, you do the same thing.

I want you to tell me specifically what YOU are trying to impart to me here.
We are all trying to learn right?
be specific.

thankyou.
Last edited by crumb on Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

crumb
Senior Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:47 am

Re: amp designers aint what they used to be?

Post by crumb » Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:00 pm

And please do give us your opinion on a certain engineer who refuses to talk the talk with a lowly hack.
Why do you suppose he's being tighter than a fishes bumhole when it comes to diodes, half waves and centre taps?
hehe
-btw..bought any fake mustard caps lately?

Thankyou neikeel.

crumb
Senior Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:47 am

Re: amp designers aint what they used to be?

Post by crumb » Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:51 pm

Third episode, ' How the big tree falls, and how the little tree helps to push him over'

In this episode in the ongoing drama, we see another poster come in with a diagram..the inferrance is that by him adding a cap and a diode to a circuit, he too has created a voltage doubler...and that..presumably... it somehow isn't? Did he create a voltage doubler? Good for you bud, well done.

What he doesn't realise is that this isn't what his Rat god wants him to do...Rat god is doing what all rats do....hide.
The LAST thing he wants anyone to do is promote any discussion that involves nuts and bolts..diodes, half waves..centre taps. capacitors.

The irony in this matter, is that the naysayers seem to rely on the word ' semantics'.
It is a term that most certainly is pointed at THEM..not the people that can simply see there is voltage doubling going on.

If an engineer wants to Lord it over a bunch of absolute halfwits ( not you, NIk, not you) and call anything that detracts from their textbooks as 'semantics'..then the only losers are the people who are trying to learn about this stuff.
It is HE that is using semantics to remain at the top of some sort of pile, in his mind anyway.( and most certainly in theirs, ive never seen such shit-gobbling in my life)
A voltage doubler, people..is a voltage doubler.
If the modification shown in that image ( hes added a cap and a diode to a bias circuit, sort of now looks a little like a jcm900 bias supply) wasn't listed in the textbooks as a voltage doubler ( i don't know..is it?) then surely that would benefit that poster if it was as it would be such an easy mod to find...you type in ' how to make a voltage doubler' into your search window, and your problem is easily and quickly solved.

What is the Rat god doing in there right now...sitting very, very still.
Last edited by crumb on Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:18 am, edited 2 times in total.

crumb
Senior Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:47 am

Re: amp designers aint what they used to be?

Post by crumb » Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:54 pm

There is actually a thread within these rooms which perhaps shows the 'problem' for what it is.

Again, the issue really is semantics ( from the poseur engineer(s) themselves...those caps and diodes just sit there doubling voltage)...but take a look at the post ive pasted underneath my text here, read it all and then read the last four lines..these guys (hehe i actually think the three 'players' are all the same spanish guy...note the 2 poster(s) both support and denounce the theory .. (one with a spanish nickname) one denounces the theory..then at the last minute do a 180 reversal...then the ' other one does the inverse...he supports the theory then denounces it all in the same paragraph...this guy finds it satisfying to show off his knowledge in this way, he should have varied it a little more ..i reckon the reason the timid ( spanish, hes from Asturia) engineer with the " I actually got a MSc in power electronics engineering" in another forum has buried himself like a mole is because he's already said waaay too much ) . This fellow who calls himself ' sinister'...has the loudest voice of reason I've heard against the notion that these amps use voltage doubling...but watch the ( signature) 180 degree flip.

( sarcasm)..do you suppose the Rat god has graced these hallowed halls before?
i find it highly unlikely to be not true.
As an anonymous poster, well, you can say what you like right,? but when people know who you are hehe...the lips get sealed tighter than a fishes bum eh ?
What did Rat god say this morning to ensure there was no further dissent from his minions?

" It's also not about me having been Technical Director or Marshall (something like CTO) I actually got a MSc in power electronics engineering"

Anyway, again ..the semantics are being generated from the naysayers, as evidenced by this post i just nicked off another thread from metroamp forums. ( pls do advise if this is not permitted, thankyou george.)


Re: rectifiers and voltage doublers etc...
Post by 51N15T3R » Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:43 am

Just trying to get you to realize that the FWB doubler isn't really doubling anything. The FW center tap rectifier puts out 1/2 the peak AC voltage as DC because the center tap is used as "zero" and only 1/2 the winding is supplying current at any given time for 50% of the incoming AC cycle, whereas with the FWB rectifier, the entire winding is passing current 100% of the time.

A transformer that is set up for FWB rectification will have a secondary that is set up for the exact required AC voltage whereas a transformer that is set up for a FW center tap rectifier will have a secondary that is set up for DOUBLE the required AC voltage. It is the utilization of the center tap as "zero" that cuts the incoming AC voltage in 1/2 on the FW center tap circuit. On the FWB circuit, the entire winding is used 100% of the time while the negative going diodes are continuously switching which end of the secondary coil is being used as the "zero" leg. On FW center tap, the diodes are continuously switching which 1/2 of the secondary the circuit is drawing from while the center tap is always zero.

On FWB doubler, the center tap is just being used as a 1/2 voltage reference that ensures that both caps charge up to 1/2 the incoming peak AC voltage. But the voltage isn't really being "doubled" per se as having a bridge rectifier across the entire winding gives you the total peak AC voltage as DC anyway. I mean sure you could look at it as a doubler if you look at it from the perspective that each cap is charging up to 1/2 the peak AC secondary voltage via the center tap, then series wiring them doubles that voltage, but you'd end up with the exact same DC voltage if you were to omit the center tap altogether and use bleeder resistors instead.
Last edited by crumb on Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:02 am, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
neikeel
Senior Member
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:31 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: amp designers aint what they used to be?

Post by neikeel » Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:28 am

Said nothing here

Just gave you a reference to read :wink:
Neil

crumb
Senior Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:47 am

Re: amp designers aint what they used to be?

Post by crumb » Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:41 am

im more of a tinkerer than a bookworm...feel free to read it yourself bud.

crumb
Senior Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:47 am

Re: amp designers aint what they used to be?

Post by crumb » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:41 am

- post deleted.

crumb
Senior Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:47 am

Re: amp designers aint what they used to be?

Post by crumb » Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:08 pm

Witness what happens in a forum where information is shared, discussed and taken advantage of by the people in that forum.
What was happening in another certain forum was that information was being shared, then smashed by wannabe trolls, and people that have absolutely no idea what they're talking about challenging ideas they know barely nothing about- and worse, their Rat God ( who I have absolutely no doubt supplied the information to the gentleman in this TDPRI forum..note how this guy discussing the mod in post #38 is only speculating RE: centre tap...after reading Rat gods posts via his ' flamingras' or ' sinister' aliases, ironically, posted here) descends down to play games with the little monkeys frolicking around the palm trees.

the action starts at post # 30

pls note, the bassman ten UL is the only fender amp to ulitise voltage doubling ( i think, i havent checked to see if other UL fenders use it as well) that is exactly the same as the way marshall use it in the 1966 1/2 - 1981 100 watters.

https://www.tdpri.com/threads/ul-bassma ... 789/page-2

crumb
Senior Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:47 am

Re: amp designers aint what they used to be?

Post by crumb » Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:23 pm

Nice to see you found your way, Neil.
I do find it curious that you caused such a fuss in another certain forum, yet over here...different story altogether.

It seems, we both go somewhere else to have a bit of fun huh?..hehe its easy to punch below your weight..but not at Georges ...As my Scottish wife says..nuooo.

Re: Diode rectification
Post by neikeel » Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:13 pm

As Danman said:
-the 100w Marshalls after the 45/100 all used a voltage doubler with the centre tap feeding the centre point of the filter cans.

My Hiwatt has a non-centre tap PT and has 360vac for (360x1.4) around 500v

You can get the correct PT from George here (Heyboer), Brian Wallace at Marstran (also Heyboer) and ******, all will give around the correct 490v on the output anodes for a 100w Marshall. Part number is Dagnall T2562.

Neil

crumb
Senior Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:47 am

Re: amp designers aint what they used to be?

Post by crumb » Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:15 am

The empire strikes back.

https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index ... eakers.11/

Here we see Santiago tell us he's very. very high ( up).
And the chief amp designer at Marshall for what 10-15 years now tells us that the only amp that utilises voltage doubling is a Bogen?

What about Musicman, what about Fender, what about the others listed above in another post?

Here in this thread we see Santiago squirming exactly as he did in another certain forum, lips sealed.

So he flaps off at the mouth ' anonymously' but doesn't realise that he's as easy to identify as really anyone that that level of education in something so specific.

Lots of lessons for people here, not taught from me, but rather him.
Just because you have a degree, diploma whatever, doesn't mean you're bound to an oath of honesty.

Post Reply