Does output transformer make a difference?

[Austin]

I think Edcor makes very good output transformers and are very reasonably priced. They have huge selection. So I would spend a little more and get a good one vs. the cheapest thing you can find, but that is just me.

[J M Fahey]

So with this limitation, does it really matter how the coil is wound?

Yes, of course .
Within this limitation you can get "regular" , "horrible" or "very good".

Regular would be middle of the road and include most commercially sucessful amp makers.
Think Fender, Peavey, and a ton others. "Good enough" for , say, 90% of users. Option "a" above.

Premium is what certain makers will use, catering for a discerning musicians who desire the best, can notice it, and will pay.
Think Matchless, VOX AC30 , classic HiWatt and Orange.
An absolute need in no NFB amps, because there's not a "helping hand" available they must sound good and flat (within the guitar range) "raw" , all by their own.
It would be option B.

Junk/horrible, etc. is what no maker would use but some hobbyists might, mainly for lack of funds and options.
Think using power transformers as OT and finding them "cool".

Now back to what seems to be worrying you: is your $43 transformer as good as a $86 one?
Who knows? By the way, *which* $86 one?
Care to send two samples for testing?
Otherwise you are asking an impossible question.

[imaradiostar]

I think it's been proven that MCI products are excellent. I would move on to things that matter more like component values and circuit design.

JT

[pdf64]

Check out the output transformer comparisons
Paper-Vs.-Plastic

[Tom Phillips]

Let me put some limit in the comparison as you can have the best vs the mickey mouse stuff. Let say I am comparing the 40W transformer from Magnetic Component that is only $43 to the more expensive brand that cost over double. That's would be a more realistic comparison.

If I were choosing for myself I would buy the $43 Magnetic Components transformer. I have never had a problem with their product. You get excellent cost to performance ratio. The fact that they can manufacture that transformer and hit the $43 sell price must mean that they have a very efficient operation. I like that they are made in their factory in the USA. Not just for "buy USA" reasons but because I think that the transformer I buy today will be the same specs and the same quality as the one I bought from them last year. Some distributors farm out their production to the lowest bidder and do not have control over the production processes used by their subcontractors which can result in quality and reliability issues.
Regards,
Tom

[Alan0354]

Yes, of course .
Within this limitation you can get "regular" , "horrible" or "very good".

Regular would be middle of the road and include most commercially sucessful amp makers.
Think Fender, Peavey, and a ton others. "Good enough" for , say, 90% of users. Option "a" above.

Premium is what certain makers will use, catering for a discerning musicians who desire the best, can notice it, and will pay.
Think Matchless, VOX AC30 , classic HiWatt and Orange.
An absolute need in no NFB amps, because there's not a "helping hand" available they must sound good and flat (within the guitar range) "raw" , all by their own.
It would be option B.

Junk/horrible, etc. is what no maker would use but some hobbyists might, mainly for lack of funds and options.
Think using power transformers as OT and finding them "cool".

Now back to what seems to be worrying you: is your $43 transformer as good as a $86 one?
Who knows? By the way, *which* $86 one?
Care to send two samples for testing?
Otherwise you are asking an impossible question.

Mercury Magnetics is one that is like two to three times the money.

[R.G.]

Check out the output transformer comparisons
Paper-Vs.-Plastic

The big problem with this kind of thing is that there is no reasonable explanation I've ever seen of any way to even **detect** whether a magnetic field passes through paper or plastic, short of perhaps the M-fields in an MRI machine. And the testing was not set up to separate out the differences in windings on the various transformers tested. Placement of windings and wires inside a transformer relative to each other will most definitely change sound; this is the subject of large amounts of technical data.

A taste test like this cannot possibly show the difference in paper versus plastic bobbins, unless the transformer windings are carefully wound to be identical on both types of bobbin. And for a raw selection from multiple manufacturers, this is not possible.

So once again, a maker of paper-bobbin transformers has "found" that paper bobbins are "better".

What a surprise.

[Tom Phillips]

Mercury Magnetics is one that is like two to three times the money.

They need the extra money to pay the marketing staff who write that stuff on their web site.

[Alan0354]

They need the extra money to pay the marketing staff who write that stuff on their web site.

That's ultimately what I want to find out. Is Mercury Magnetics worth the money over Magnetic Components. I just replace the big OT of the Bassman 100 with the Magnetic Components OT, on the first pass, I don't hear any difference in sound quality.

[Alan0354]

The big problem with this kind of thing is that there is no reasonable explanation I've ever seen of any way to even **detect** whether a magnetic field passes through paper or plastic, short of perhaps the M-fields in an MRI machine. And the testing was not set up to separate out the differences in windings on the various transformers tested. Placement of windings and wires inside a transformer relative to each other will most definitely change sound; this is the subject of large amounts of technical data.

A taste test like this cannot possibly show the difference in paper versus plastic bobbins, unless the transformer windings are carefully wound to be identical on both types of bobbin. And for a raw selection from multiple manufacturers, this is not possible.

So once again, a maker of paper-bobbin transformers has "found" that paper bobbins are "better".

What a surprise.

Also the article is done by Magnetic Components. But all in all, I never buy into the plastic bobbin vs paper bobbins. I can imagine the winding pattern make a big difference, not the bobbin. Maybe just say slight difference, we all know change in some component values can make drastic difference, why even worry about that very little bit, work on the design!!!!

[Tom Phillips]

... Is Mercury Magnetics worth the money over Magnetic Components. I just replace the big OT of the Bassman 100 with the Magnetic Components OT, on the first pass, I don't hear any difference in sound quality.

Considering the following I’m not surprised that you didn’t hear any difference.
Was the original OT faulty? If not then, for the sound to improve, then the replacement transformer would need to be:

1. “Better”
2. The “better” would need to be in a way that sounded better to you.
3. It would need to be so much better that it would overcome any other deficiencies in the existing amp caused by bad or out-of-spec components as well as the original design. As a very extreme analogy you can put the best lipstick in the world on a pig but it won’t make it look like a gorgeous supermodel.

Does that make sense?

Tom

[J M Fahey]

Agree with RG (why does it not surprise me? )
Being cynic, in the MCI's sponsored test , the MCI is best.
I'm sure that :
in Heyboer's , Heyboers are best.
in MM's , MM's are best
in Weber's, Webers are best.
and so on.

That said, and hearing the tests again, Weber sounds very good, Heyboer is *almost* the same, but sounds like the microphone was set somewhat furter away.
The MCI sounds very good, almost like the Weber but with very slightly more high mids.
Might be also a slight variation in mic position, which change sound much more than what was shown here.
And the MM? : sounds *muddy* , which I can't believe.
Of course, MCI might have doctored the test so they clearly surpass the "most famous".
***Without testing them on my bench*** I can't confirm or discard the MM sound shown, but my personal opinion (may be wrong) is that MM's *maybe* are not better than regular ones, or only slightly so, but they definitely can't be *that* bad as shown, or nobody would keep them after testing.
Which is not the case.
This alone shows me that this test is flawed.
IMHO, of course.

[Alan0354]

Considering the following I’m not surprised that you didn’t hear any difference.
Was the original OT faulty? If not then, for the sound to improve, then the replacement transformer would need to be:

1. “Better”
2. The “better” would need to be in a way that sounded better to you.
3. It would need to be so much better that it would overcome any other deficiencies in the existing amp caused by bad or out-of-spec components as well as the original design. As a very extreme analogy you can put the best lipstick in the world on a pig but it won’t make it look like a gorgeous supermodel.

Does that make sense?

Tom

The original OT was not faulty, just too heavy and I am not going to design an amp with the Fender transformer. It is a huge Bass transformer if you are familiar with the Bassman 100. Also I have a suspicion that the original transformer was designed for bass ( less core efficient), it is way over kill for guitar and the inductance must be higher. That's the two reason I replace with the Magnetic Components smaller 40W OT. I was hoping to get a little compression at high output, but I did not notice that either.

[Alan0354]

Agree with RG (why does it not surprise me? )
Being cynic, in the MCI's sponsored test , the MCI is best.
I'm sure that :
in Heyboer's , Heyboers are best.
in MM's , MM's are best
in Weber's, Webers are best.
and so on.

That said, and hearing the tests again, Weber sounds very good, Heyboer is *almost* the same, but sounds like the microphone was set somewhat furter away.
The MCI sounds very good, almost like the Weber but with very slightly more high mids.
Might be also a slight variation in mic position, which change sound much more than what was shown here.
And the MM? : sounds *muddy* , which I can't believe.
Of course, MCI might have doctored the test so they clearly surpass the "most famous".
***Without testing them on my bench*** I can't confirm or discard the MM sound shown, but my personal opinion (may be wrong) is that MM's *maybe* are not better than regular ones, or only slightly so, but they definitely can't be *that* bad as shown, or nobody would keep them after testing.
Which is not the case.
This alone shows me that this test is flawed.
IMHO, of course.

For one, I find human ears ( at least mine) is not reliable. Memory particularly is quite inaccurate. Unless you have identical amps only different in the OT and you can switch side by side, it is almost impossible to compare. Listening to the recording is not very accurate either. Even if you have identical amp setup, each amp might still be a little different. Also, it is impossible to pick the strings exactly the same everytime. The strings sound different every note you pick.

Case in point, I had a guitarist that is known to have good ears listen to my design and I had a by pass switch to either have to circuit in or out for two out of three circuits. Long story short, he repeatedly test one circuit on or bypass and feel the difference, me and my other friend could hear that too. It was not until days later that I remember the one he claimed there was a difference turn out to be the one that I did not have the bypass!!! ( I only have a DPDT so I left out one without switching). You hear what you want to hear. I am not kidding around, I am serious about this. It just slip my mind that the circuit cannot be bypassed only for that section.

[R.G.]

I was hoping to get a little compression at high output, but I did not notice that either.

Good observation. You won't get compression from an OT except at the lowest frequencies, because the idea of an OT "saturating" to cause compression, while theoretically possible, is frequency dependent.

Transformers saturate when their primary is provided too much voltage*seconds integral. The "seconds" thing means that saturation happens first at lowest frequencies. A transformer is twice as hard to saturate at twice the frequency. So it doesn't cause the generic compression people think of.

And as you note, this is why transformers for bass are bigger and heavier; they have to have higher inductance to preserve their frequency response to half the frequency of a guitar. That means more iron, or more copper, or both.