amp designers aint what they used to be?
Posted: 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.
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.