6H30 possible in morgan jones ?

[headphonejunkie]

I am still in the design phase with my amp but am wondering if I could use the 6h30 instead of the 6922 in the output stages of the morgan jones. The only differences appear to be current usage from what I can see with some quick research.I am thinking maybe I can compensate if necessary to make this possible.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by headphonejunkie /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am still in the design phase with my amp but am wondering if I could use the 6h30 instead of the 6922 in the output stages of the morgan jones. The only differences appear to be current usage from what I can see with some quick research.I am thinking maybe I can compensate if necessary to make this possible.

Probably get a quicker / better answer on this over on That Other Forum, where, fwiw, the proper name is cavalli-jones. MJ did come up with the initial design, which worked but worked poorly. Alex Cavalli improved it by a huge margin. For best results, use the variable-feedback variation.

fwiw, the 6n23p is the closest thing to a 6922 the russians ever made, but I've never heard anyone singing it's praises.

The 6H30 will Probably Work, if you're lucky you can get one of the sharper tube-heads interested and they might advise you what component values to change to make it work better.

 

[headphonejunkie]

Thanks eric. Time to jump over there.

 

[edisonwu]

Even though it works after some adjustments are done, the circuit won't take any advantage of the tube (6H30). So why bother?

 

[headphonejunkie]

So you don't think the 6h30 would sound good? Edison.

 

[ryssen]

I think the 6h30 will sound better than 6922 if you adjust the circuit for it.
Never liked the 6922..

 

[edisonwu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by headphonejunkie /img/forum/go_quote.gif So you don't think the 6h30 would sound good? Edison.

No, it's good tube. The design of it is superior than 6922. I was just saying that the MJ circuit can't really open up its potential, even though you may make it work on the circuit. Try searching on Balanced Audio Technology company. they are really good at designing circuits for 6H30.

 

[headphonejunkie]

I have an aikido amp I am going to build eventually that has the option to use 6922 or 6h30 on its output stage. In that circuit you do not even have to change any parts around either. I may have to give the 6h30 when I get my CJ built. If the aikido amp which I think uses the same circuit design uses them, the CJ should be able to also. I think I may have just answered my first initial question.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by headphonejunkie /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have an aikido amp I am going to build eventually that has the option to use 6922 or 6h30 on its output stage. In that circuit you do not even have to change any parts around either.

I don't believe that is true as the two tubes have slightly different requirements. A friend of mine made an Aikido with the 6H30 and tried subbing some 6922's in... sounded like crap. He did some research and found that their power requirements are slightly different. Or something to that effect.

 

[headphonejunkie]

Ya, I think I will stick with the 6922's for the CJ and use the 6h30's whenever I build my aikido. Then when I get my aikido built I can always play around with the CJ and the 6h30's.I was told by someone that the 6h30's use 60ma? compared to the 6922's 27ma? so I might just build that capability into my CJ.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by headphonejunkie /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was told by someone that the 6h30's use 60ma? compared to the 6922's 27ma?

That is what I was getting at. I'm just not a techie.

If you need some advice for your Aikido build, I would shoot a PM to looser101. He build an Aikido headphone amp with 6H30's and 6CG7's.

 

[jarthel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericj /img/forum/go_quote.gif MJ did come up with the initial design, which worked but worked poorly. Alex Cavalli improved it by a huge margin. For best results, use the variable-feedback variation.

care to point out the test that compared original mj design VS alex's?

it's a huge statement to make that something Morgan jones designed worked poorly.

 

[tomb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarthel /img/forum/go_quote.gif care to point out the test that compared original mj design VS alex's? it's a huge statement to make that something Morgan jones designed worked poorly.

There is no "test" per se, for usability - and that's what Runeight improved. The basic MJ was unable to handle low Z loads very well. That's not a defect, just a limitation in usability. Granted, a better phrase might have been selected than stating it "worked poorly," but that's probably a reasonable description of the MJ with low Z phones, perhaps. I'm not sure it was any personal criticism of MJ, whose work is well-respected in the tube community - and that's probably an understatement.