Reactive load, but 'better' - The Amp Garage https://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?

f=4&t=36210

The Amp Garage

A tube amp builder's community Search…  

 Quick links  FAQ  Notifications  Private messages ogrozion 

 Board index ‹ Hot Rods ‹ Dumble Discussion Google Search ... 

Reactive load, but 'better'

Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal

Post Reply    Search this topic…   First unread post • 10 posts • Page 1 of 1

Reactive load, but 'better'   rootz

 by rootz » Wed Apr 19, 2023 7:47 pm Posts: 557

Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:24 am
Not to sound arrogant with that title, but you know, I'm Dutch lol. Location: Delft, The Netherlands

I'd been thinking about a new load lately and a hard time choosing one. Suhr: great load, but resonance peak at 120Hz, so not a
Contact: 
Like 7 others liked this
simulated open back cab. Captor X: great software, but no reactive load, so unrealistic amp response. Ox: closed system,
expensive, but also very good.
But hey, I like DIY, so why not build a 'better' Aiken load. Switchable presence and low end resonance peak (open back, closed
back). Modelled after a single G12 65 in a closed and open cab.
No frills. No reamping, no speaker sim. Got a C.A.B. M+ for that. Works like a charm and takes any amp I throw at it.

ATTACHMENTS

1 of 7 21/04/2023, 06:05
Reactive load, but 'better' - The Amp Garage https://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=36210

2 of 7 21/04/2023, 06:05
Reactive load, but 'better' - The Amp Garage https://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=36210

Re: Reactive load, but 'better'

3 of 7 21/04/2023, 06:05
Reactive load, but 'better' - The Amp Garage https://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=36210

 by dorrisant » Wed Apr 19, 2023 8:05 pm

 
Very nice!

dorrisant

"Education is what you're left with after you have forgotten what you have learned" - Enzo Posts: 2404
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:27 am
Location: Somewhere between a river
and a cornfield
Contact: 
Like 1 others liked this

Re: Reactive load, but 'better'  

 by rccolgan » Thu Apr 20, 2023 7:03 am

woooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

rccolgan

Ryan Posts: 323

https://www.thetonegeek.com/ Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:39 pm
Contact: 
Like 1 others liked this

Re: Reactive load, but 'better'   Bombacaototal

 by Bombacaototal » Thu Apr 20, 2023 9:26 am Posts: 1641

Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:53 am
Cool project!! Contact: 
Like 1 others liked this

Re: Reactive load, but 'better'  

 by gktamps » Thu Apr 20, 2023 10:18 am

Truly excellent work!

gktamps
Any chance you would share your BOM and schematic?
Posts: 699
Cheers, Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:05 pm
Greg Contact: 
Like 1 others liked this

4 of 7 21/04/2023, 06:05
Reactive load, but 'better' - The Amp Garage https://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=36210

Re: Reactive load, but 'better'   rootz

 by rootz » Thu Apr 20, 2023 3:50 pm Posts: 557

Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:24 am
Thanks for the kind words, or in Ryans case long word lol. Location: Delft, The Netherlands
I do not have a BOM of this project, but based on the schematic and layout that is easy to figure out. Contact: 
Like 3 others liked this
See the added LTspice screenshot for the main differences between the Suhr reactive load (non-IR version) and what I turned it
in to. I ditched the line transformer of the Suhr load. Costs a lot and I don't see the benefit with the CAB M right next to the
load. Short cables, so not much noise picked up.
Now, can you say late night practice without Boss Waza or Ox budget? Love this thing.

ATTACHMENTS

Archive.zip
(109.29 KiB) Downloaded 9 times

Re: Reactive load, but 'better'  

 by Guy77 » Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:29 pm

Guy77
 rootz wrote: ↑ Thu Apr 20, 2023 3:50 pm
Posts: 789
Thanks for the kind words, or in Ryans case long word lol. Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 11:46 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
I do not have a BOM of this project, but based on the schematic and layout that is easy to figure out.
Contact: 
See the added LTspice screenshot for the main differences between the Suhr reactive load (non-IR version) and what I turned it Like 2 others liked this
in to. I ditched the line transformer of the Suhr load. Costs a lot and I don't see the benefit with the CAB M right next to the
load. Short cables, so not much noise picked up.

5 of 7 21/04/2023, 06:05
Reactive load, but 'better' - The Amp Garage https://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=36210

Now, can you say late night practice without Boss Waza or Ox budget? Love this thing.

You said the magic words that peaked my interest! Open back cab and G1265 speaker. That is all I have been selling lately, so I
am interested in trying this out.
Just need to clone myself first so I can have the time needed to build them LOLOLOLO
Great work as always Bas!

Guy


Re: Reactive load, but 'better'   rootz

 by rootz » Thu Apr 20, 2023 5:02 pm Posts: 557

Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:24 am
Not so sure if the electrical characteristics differ much between say a G12M of G12 65, Guy. The general principle is: get rising Location: Delft, The Netherlands
impedance with high end and get one (or two) impedance peaks in the low end. Two for a ported cab, one for closed or open Contact: 
Like 1 others liked this
back. I use a piece of software called REW to measure the characteristics of a build in speaker. Big fun with a EVM12L: resonance
peak at 45 or so Hz in an open back cab. Rising impedance with frequency seems a bit flatter than with a G12 65. Might be one
of the (more minor) reasons the speaker sounds a bit flatter/balanced/hifi with just about any guitar amp?
Anyway Guy, the design is in archive.zip. I did that for you, but I can't make extra spare time for you bro lol.


Re: Reactive load, but 'better'  

 by Reeltarded » Fri Apr 21, 2023 3:04 am

Fantastic and NOT inexpensive! I am replacing Palmers with something a little more connective but without reactance. In main
boxes 400w 16R with input, Jensen TRS/XLR, thru and external module for rheostat for thru added after I get happy response.
Reeltarded
That thing you made is a monster! Posts: 9491
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:38 am
Location: GA USA
Signatures have a 255 character limit that I could abuse, but I am not Cecil B. DeMille.
Contact: 
Like

Re: Reactive load, but 'better'  

 by bepone » Fri Apr 21, 2023 3:08 am

interesting, i would need one too, i have never checked this , is this attenuator also or just load for the amp?
bepone

Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:22 pm
Location: croatia

6 of 7 21/04/2023, 06:05
Reactive load, but 'better' - The Amp Garage https://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=36210

Contact: 
Like

Post Reply      10 posts • Page 1 of 1

 Return to “Dumble Discussion” Jump to 

WHO IS ONLINE
Users browsing this forum: ogrozion and 1 guest

 Board index  Contact us  The team  Members  Delete cookies All times are UTC-03:00

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited

Privacy | Terms

7 of 7 21/04/2023, 06:05