Author Topic: 200S Mods  (Read 12782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Isaac

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,904
200S Mods
« on: June 27, 2007, 12:57:06 pm »
SoundmasterG sent this to me a while back:
Quote
Basically what I did was use isolated input and output jacks, with a ground buss that only touches the chassis through a lift switch as Kevin O' Connor recommends in his TUT3 book. I also use series connect caps to get a higher voltage capability, but that involves drilling holes and moving the choke among other things. I added a bias pot so now I have one for each power tube. I also added bias tip pin jacks to the outside of the chassis so I can bias it without removing it from the head. I also added a positive bias of about 50v DC to the heater center tap to reduce hum and noise. I replaced every component in the amp with new ones. I used metal film 2W resistors and polypropylene and polyester orange drop and mallory 150 caps. I used a couple Solen caps too. Its all made the amp much quieter and better sounding. For electrolytics I used Xicons, and Sprague. Basically the only mods I did to the circuit per se was to increase the first two cap stages in the power supply to 110uf and 100uf respectively, and also upped the first stage cathode cap to 300uf. It all made it much better for bass with a tighter and deeper bass response. The main thing with doing all of this that was hard was doing a new layout, drilling the holes, and fitting all the parts in properly.
By "the first two cap stages" I assume you mean the 320V 'C' section and the 425V 'B' section, correct?

I don't see the advantage of increasing the first stage cathode cap to 300μF. The stock 250μF in parallel with the 1.5K resistor gives a time constant of 375msec, which bypasses the cathode resistor down to 2.7Hz. Correct? Going to 300μF raises the time constant to 450msec, lowering the frequency to 2.2Hz. Unless I'm missing something, forgetting something from my electronics classes. It has been quite a few years...
Isaac

Offline Soundmasterg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: 200S Mods
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2007, 01:30:53 pm »
Actually what I meant by the "first two cap stages" were the 30uf e-cap to ground before the choke, and the 20uf section A after the choke. I would consider sections B and C to be the 3rd and 4th stages respectively, maybe I'm wrong but I would think that would be the way they would be noted since each one filters successively. Section B goes to the phase splitter, and section C goes to preamp and gain stage in front of the splitter, and the preamp stages are RC coupled to that cap so any change in value will affect the frequency response there. Changing the value of the E-caps for the plate and screen nodes will affect how the power supply responds to high current demands, but it doesn't affect the frequency response of those sections of the amp, so going to larger caps like I did makes for a tighter and quicker bass response, and a higher voltage rating.

I didn't get into the math when I increased that cathode cap on the first stage to 300uf, I just listened to it as compared to the 250uf and I liked it's sound better. I know its not scientific, but since we are interested in the sound of it since it is an audio amp, it seemed appropriate. When I got the amp there was no cathode cap at all, so I had to add a 250uf to get back to stock or I could change it up. I played around with other values too but I liked the 300uf the best. Its not a huge difference, as you confirmed with your numbers, but while it is a subtle change, it was one I liked. Go with whatever sounds good to you though. Since everyone hears differently, your opinion of what sounds good is as valid as mine is.

Also, just one correction to make, in that email I sent to you, the second stage is two 100uf caps in series for a 50uf value rather than the 100uf that I said it was. So instead of the stock 30uf/20uf/20uf/20uf @ 525v, my setup is 110uf @ 700v/50uf @ 700v/22uf @ 500v/22uf @ 450v. That third node does have to be 500v too as the voltage is up above 450v still at that point. Sorry for the confusion.

Greg

Offline Isaac

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,904
Re: 200S Mods
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2007, 02:33:32 pm »
No problem. I was just looking for clarification, as I currently have my 200S open on the living room floor!
Isaac

Offline Isaac

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,904
Re: 200S Mods
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2007, 04:45:38 pm »
Okay, so I put a pair of 1N4006 diodes in place of the GZ34. First stage DC voltage is 549V. No problem, as my 200S has a pair of 600V Sprague Atoms there. However, after the coil, the voltage is 547V. The spec for the canned multicap is 525V, but the one I have is only 475V. Unless I can find some other caps, I'm going to have to take out the diodes and put back the GZ34. Even then, the DC voltage will exceed the 475V. What to do, what to do?
Isaac

Offline Isaac

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,904
Re: 200S Mods
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2007, 06:38:39 pm »
I pulled the diodes out. Voltage dropped to 528VDC with the GZ34, still well over the rated voltage of the multicap. It's been working, so it probably won't fail right away, but I'll have to get some caps.
Isaac

Offline JoeArthur

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
Re: 200S Mods
« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2007, 06:44:24 pm »

Do you ever get the feeling you might be looking for magic where none exists?

Offline EdBass

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,914
Re: 200S Mods
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2007, 07:37:50 pm »
I don't really like the idea of using PCB's in a vintage point to point amp, but for 50 bucks, you can go back to the diodes if you want and it's reversible.

http://www.triodeelectronics.com/sdslabmk3cap1.html

Offline Isaac

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,904
Re: 200S Mods
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2007, 08:21:26 am »
Do you ever get the feeling you might be looking for magic where none exists?
Magic? Nah. I'm just fiddling about. The closest thing to magic that I believe in comes inside a bottle of wine.

I don't really like the idea of using PCB's in a vintage point to point amp, but for 50 bucks, you can go back to the diodes if you want and it's reversible.

http://www.triodeelectronics.com/sdslabmk3cap1.html
I'll give that some thought. I'll have to compare the price to discreet caps, but the PCB thing doesn't bother me a bit.
Isaac

Offline djc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 194
Re: 200S Mods
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2007, 08:25:46 am »
I put one of those in my 200s under the carriage so the can is still there and visible.  sounds great, gives me the 600 or 800 volts (I can't remember) that this thing spikes to and looks vintage.  some modification had to be done to the circuit board to work properly.  I didn't do that, I had a great tech in my area go through the amp and modify the new cap board.

Offline Soundmasterg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: 200S Mods
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2007, 01:50:27 pm »
You could try a Weber Copper Cap WZ34 or WZ68 and the voltage will be close to where you are with the GZ34, but with no filament load on the power transformer, your PT will run cooler than stock, which is always a good thing. Mine is using a Weber CC WZ68, so if you can remember how mine sounds, then there you go.

You'll still need some higher voltage caps on those beginning stages. Your Spragues are ok there, but for the rest, the discrete caps are cheaper and if you run them in series like I did, two 350v caps will give you a 700v capability which is plenty, but to install them neatly in the amp requires drilling a couple holes to mount some terminal strips, or use silicone and/or tie wraps to hold them in place. If you decide to do the series connected caps thing, don't forget the 220k 1w resistors that need to be in parallel with each cap.

The triode electronics PCB setup is good in that those radial caps used on it are even cheaper than the typical axials, and will be around longer in better quality probably given that they're used for modern electronics more.

You may also be interested in a Sprague Atoms thread on the Hoffman bbs that goes into some of the problems with the current small caps inside the large can approach that Spague has been using for some time. Here's the link.

http://www.el34world.com/Forum/yabb2/nph-YaBB.pl?num=1182110842

Greg

Offline JoeArthur

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
Re: 200S Mods
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2007, 11:41:39 am »
I don't see the advantage of increasing the first stage cathode cap to 300μF. The stock 250μF in parallel with the 1.5K resistor gives a time constant of 375msec, which bypasses the cathode resistor down to 2.7Hz. Correct? Going to 300μF raises the time constant to 450msec, lowering the frequency to 2.2Hz. Unless I'm missing something, forgetting something from my electronics classes. It has been quite a few years...

I think something is wrong with your math. Since your time constant to frequency conversion is correct, maybe the time constants you are coming up with is incorrect or doesn't consider what you are really trying to determine is the cutoff frequency which is normally defined as when the response is 3 db down.

To determine the -3db frequency - when a cap will have a capacitive reactance equal to a resistor, I simply use:

freq = 1 / (2*Pi*farads*ohms)

For a 250μF and 1.5Kohms, I get a frequency of 0.424Hz. I get 0.354Hz for a 300μF cap.

Using the cathode resistor by itself is incorrect. You need to consider that the cathode impedance is acting in parallel with the cathode resistor. The cathode impedance for this stage would be roughly 1.6K, and that in parallel with the 1.5K cathode resistor would be about 774 ohms. So, using the 1.5K resistor alone will result in a number about an octave lower (i.e. 1/2 the frequency) than actual.

Will you hear the difference? Absolutely not. It will be subtle to the point of non-existance. It'll all be imagination. Here's why.

What would be the gain difference of this stage operating without a cathode resistor bypass cap versus operating completely, totally, 100percent with a fully bypassed cathode resistor?

6db. Actually I rounded up it's a couple/few tenths less.

At the -3db cutoff frequency, 3db out of the 6db maximum available has already been eaten up - the stage is already operating with 3db more gain with the bypass cap than without. How long do you think it'll take the stage to max out that remaining 3db of maximum gain potential?

About an octave, or twice the frequency. For all frequencies above this, the stage is already operating at it's absolute maximum potential. That's all there is and there ain't no more.

With either a 250 or 300μF cap, this stage has already reached it's maximum potential well below 5hz. It will not increase or change anything once you feed in a frequency you can actually hear. Even using the more typical 22μF value for a bypass cap (-3db @ 9.3Hz), the tube will be operating at maximum gain for any usable frequency.

In Kevin's books he consistently makes two statements, which I will paraphrase. The first is one we know from our own experience - a "tight" bass is achieved by reducing bass response. The second is common sense once you think about it - there is no point in increasing frequency response at frequencies that won't make it through the amp.

Look at the output side of this stage. Two values for coupling capacitors can be determined based on the position of the bass boost switch. The value of the capacitor and the volume control resistance in series with the output impedance of this stage will determine how much bass actually makes it out of the stage and into the rest of the amp. This forms a first order high-pass filter.

The output impedance is roughly 38K, but I will bump it up to 50K so I can get better numbers than actual. The volume control is 500K and I'm going to assume the full value, again for better numbers than actual.

With the .0022μF cap alone, the high pass filter has a -3db cuttoff at 131Hz. Frequencies below this will be reduced at a 6db rate. By the time we get down to our lowest frequency, that 6db gain boost we got from the cathode bypass cap is history.

With the bass boost switch on, the two coupling caps are in parallel giving us a 0.009 and change. Heck, let's just round it up to .01μF, again for better numbers than actual. This is much better, our -3db cutoff frequency is now a hair below 30Hz. Our cathode bypass 6db boost will be eliminated at 15Hz and it's all downhill from there. But the good news is that our cathode bypass efforts will be fully recognized at around 60Hz, a fret or so above the open bass "A" string.

Before I rest my case, I'll leave you with a quote from the Radiotron Designer's Handbook, my third edition being printed November 1941, concerning bypass cap values (Ck):

Quote
A cathode bias resistor is usually by-passed by a condenser (Ck) in order

(1) to avoid degeneration and loss of gain, and
(2) to avoid hum.

If Ck were omitted, the amplifier would operate with Negative Current Feedback. The capacitance Ck when used to avoid degeneration should normally have a reactance which is low compared with Rk at the lowest frequency required to be amplified. If accurate calculations of this capacitance for specified frequency response are required the formula at the end of this section may be used. For most practical purposes Ck may be a 25μF electrolytic condenser, and although such a high capacitance is often unnecessary for frequency response it is valuable in by-passing hum voltage originating between the heater and cathode.

Yep, there is much more magic in a bottle of wine.


Offline JoeArthur

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
Re: 200S Mods
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2007, 03:11:42 pm »

Another point to ponder...

I had another thought, but since I was in another room I dragged out my paper schematics to check something on the 200s. Nah, I was mistaken...

However, the schematic I pulled out had a 1969 date. Guess what, no cathode bypass cap - none at all.

I checked a few others. One other 200s schematic didn't show a bypass cap, but it also didn't have a date. I assume Sunn schematics without dates are earlier... as I think they only started dating them in 1969 and later.

So... if you have a late 1968, or most definitely a 1969 or later 200s (or other amp that used the same circuit) the "stock" configuration is no cathode bypass cap. Put one in, and you are really "modding" it, not restoring it to a stock configuration.

Pretty strange huh?

Offline Soundmasterg

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: 200S Mods
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2007, 05:34:28 pm »
I wondered about the absence of the 250uf cap on the first stage, as the schematics I had showed one there, and I remember my '67 had one. I'll have to check the schematics here to see if some of them don't show it, but if you have some schematics that aren't in the archives here, maybe you could get a copy to Tboy of the ones that aren't here so he could add them into the archives?

Greg

Offline JoeArthur

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
Re: 200S Mods
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2007, 06:05:27 pm »
I wondered about the absence of the 250uf cap on the first stage, as the schematics I had showed one there, and I remember my '67 had one. I'll have to check the schematics here to see if some of them don't show it, but if you have some schematics that aren't in the archives here, maybe you could get a copy to Tboy of the ones that aren't here so he could add them into the archives?

Greg

I no longer freely contribute schematics to this site. Not since 2000, when I finally realized my contributions of schematics (still on this site) wouldn't result in the schematics I wanted to see being submitted by others.

It's a long, boring story, but as the Who sang "We Won't Get Fooled Again". I learned my lesson.

Besides, tboy doesn't provide an email or other link for contributions to the site. Therefore, I assume he doesn't want any.

However, for your purpose, if you have a copy of "The Tube Amp Book", version 4, by Aspen Pittman, this same schematic - the 1969 version of the 200s without cathode bypass caps can be found on page 630.