OTL Asylum

OTL, Output Transformerless Amplifier User Group.

Return to OTL Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

I think I fixed the problem with my Beveridge OTL DD amplifier

71.163.180.70

Posted on October 13, 2020 at 11:50:29
Lew
Audiophile

Posts: 10911
Location: Bethesda, Maryland
Joined: December 11, 2000
Without detailing the process, it basically boils down to you cannot "tweak" this amplifier. It is marginally stable when configured exactly as original, and only then. But the mate to this amplifier, the one that runs the other channel, seems to have tolerated a few extra parts and tweaks with fewer or no problems. That amp has always been stable. I cannot find a single physical difference between the two, but there it is. I should say that this applies to the +/-3200V tube output stage. The input stage is low voltage solid state and seems to be happy in both amplifiers, with some tweaks allowed. It seems like I have been working on the faulty amplifier for a year, but based on my original post below, it was "only" five months or so. Could have been faster but I don't like to work on the amplifier for at least a day after having had it powered up, for fear of getting a deadly jolt from charged up capacitors. So, I changed something, fired up the amp, made some measurements, and shut it down, and then waited 24 hours or more before attacking it again. It took some time in between failures to plan a new strategy, as well.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: I think I fixed the problem with my Beveridge OTL DD amplifier, posted on October 13, 2020 at 14:20:04
6bq5
Audiophile

Posts: 4384
Location: SF Bay
Joined: August 16, 2001
Lew,
I applaud your sense of Caution!

When I worked on these amp with Roger in the late '80s-early '90s,
we would typically set the unit up, turn it on to get some measurements, then turn it off and walk away for a day (at least) before coming back to it.
Roger would let me know what needed to be changed/repaired/replaced, and after waiting - I would get to it-

Yes, there are two amps within the enclosure - the signal amp - ss to bring the signal up a bit - before feeding it to the HV supply (the AC signal ran on top of the DC supply to the diaphragm)...

The big issues with the Tube amp - the HV amp for the stators & diaphragm was the rectifier, and then the carbon comp resistors.
I would replace all of those components...
If you want to play with the signal amp - go for it- but be careful not to increase the gain.
Happy Listening

 

RE: I think I fixed the problem with my Beveridge OTL DD amplifier, posted on October 13, 2020 at 22:21:05
airheadair
Audiophile

Posts: 393
Location: California
Joined: October 18, 2010
Great news. I've been wondering about this for quite a while.

 

We should talk...., posted on October 14, 2020 at 16:16:04
Lew
Audiophile

Posts: 10911
Location: Bethesda, Maryland
Joined: December 11, 2000
although I have always thought of you as a knowledgable guy, I didn't realize until now that your hands on experience with these amplifiers was in the presence of RAM and with access to his ideas and judgement.

In the amplifier that was oscillating (or at least was very noisy,whether or not it was truly oscillating), I found that ALL of the eight 470K ohm carbon comp resistors that are used to shunt or as bleeders, were "bad", in that the measured R was either "OL" or >1M on my Fluke. Knowing that it is the fate of CC resistors to increase in value over time, unless they are made by Allen Bradley apparently, I first replaced them with Roederstein metal film types. To make matters worse, and because the 2W Roedersteins are physically large, I mounted them on the "bottom" side of the output board, the side with the tracings, facing the input board. That turned out to be a real no-no. The oscillation got worse. These amplifiers do not like any parts on the side between the output and input boards, and there is apparently a good reason why RAM or HB used CC types in the first place. I eventually had to go back to CC types, and they had to be mounted as per original. (CC resistors in "no-man's land" were also not tolerated.) One of many lessons I learned. I have to think that the shunt resistors were way over value for quite a while before I discovered the problem, yet most of that time the amplifier played music, albeit it was always much more unstable than its mate. I've got the "good" amplifier also on my workbench, so I can compare the two during the process of quieting down the noisy one; I need to check the CCs on that one too. In contrast, the 1K CC resistors that seem to be grid-stoppers are perfectly OK even after 40 years.

Five years ago, after I purchased this system, Bill Thalmann in Springfield, VA, worked on the amps to do some things I didn't feel skilled enough to do, given the voltages involved, like replace all the tube sockets. At that time, Bill installed all new HV rectifiers, so we are OK there. Except, during my early trouble-shooting, I de-soldered one end of one of the rectifiers in order to check it. When I tried to re-install it, I boogered the PCB tracing for the lead that goes to ground (cathode I think). I first got around that by soldering the end of the rectifier to the tracing but in a way that it was not secured to the board. But it looked just fine. Three or so months later, after feeling a sense of defeat over and over again, and in desperation really, I decided to do a better job of securing the rectifier to the board, for no good reason. THAT turned out to be the final step to making the amplifier quiet. Although the solder joint I first created, direct to the tracing, looked totally OK, it must have been "cold".

 

RE: I think I fixed the problem with my Beveridge OTL DD amplifier, posted on October 14, 2020 at 16:22:01
Lew
Audiophile

Posts: 10911
Location: Bethesda, Maryland
Joined: December 11, 2000
I am almost afraid to have reported success, since the real proof of the pudding comes when I re-attach the amplifier to its speaker. I may have reported earlier that I built a dummy speaker load to use while doing this work. This consists only of two 3nF capacitors soldered end to end. The junction of the two capacitors goes the screen output of the amplifier, and the stators connect, respectively, to either end of the series pair. All of this is in an insulated box with 20KV wires terminated in HV banana plugs that go from inside the box to the amplifier via holes in the box. (I think I did mention it elsewhere.)

 

RE: I think I fixed the problem with my Beveridge OTL DD amplifier, posted on October 14, 2020 at 23:09:32
6bq5
Audiophile

Posts: 4384
Location: SF Bay
Joined: August 16, 2001
Lew-
We had a dummy load in the lab - it was a couple pieces of phenolic that on one side had the banana plugs facing down- and then sandwiched between the two phenolic boards were a set of caps and a resistor (IIRC) - i'll need to dig around next time I am at his last lab/house to check values - but your idea is Spot ON!

Happy Listening

 

470K resistors, posted on October 15, 2020 at 08:50:25
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 4769
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
You mentioned that the cc resistors would not work on the bottom side of the board either- so the bit about the metal films may well be inconclusive. There are newer metal film types now that are about 1/4 the size that you would expect: a 1 watt version of these is half the size of a 1/2W cc resistor! They are also lower noise in our experience.

The fact that the amp is this easily upset suggests to me that it operates right at the edge of its phase margin- a tad bit too much feedback. Due to the kind of load it has to drive, opening up the bandwidth with newer parts seems unlikely to help out.

 

RE: 470K resistors, posted on October 15, 2020 at 09:18:55
Lew
Audiophile

Posts: 10911
Location: Bethesda, Maryland
Joined: December 11, 2000
Well, the CC resistors as shunts mounted on the bottom side of the PCB did not cause as much noise as did the metal films mounted in the same position, but the noise was further reduced when I moved the CCs to the top side of the PCB, where they were originally. As you can well imagine, my goal is to enjoy the Beveridge speakers, so I did not dwell on the question of whether metal film resistors could be made to work, or not. I had both types on hand, so I went with the most optimal choice. True though, the schematic calls for 470K/1W. I bought Roederstein 475K/2W from Michael Percy Audio, just because he is reliable and fast; they turned out to be fatter than the OEM CC types in 1W rating. Thus they really had to be mounted on the bottom side of the board because no room on the top side. There are plenty of carbon film types that would fit nicely on the top side too, like the KOA Speer from Mouser. But I had CCs, and I knew they would work, at least without adding to my problems.

 

carbon composition shunt resistors, posted on October 18, 2020 at 09:07:58
Lew
Audiophile

Posts: 10911
Location: Bethesda, Maryland
Joined: December 11, 2000
I already mentioned this to 6bq5 via private email, but I thank him for pointing me to check the CC shunt resistors in the "good" amplifier. What I found when first I paid attention to the DC voltage readings was that ALL of the CC resistors were either about 20% above their nominal resistance value or had completely gone short circuit, meaning the meter could read their value as "OL". One other read about 1.1M ohms. This was causing aberrant current sharing across the PS capacitors. (The Beveridge PS has to develop 3200V in two 1600V sections. It uses 8 X 450V electrolytic capacitors in series, between ground and the 3200V output, in order to do that. Hence the necessity for the shunt resistors to promote current sharing.) I noticed that some of the capacitors were not seeing their fair share of the voltage, and others were seeing way more than their 450V limit. Further, as a result the voltage was drifting under my observation. So, if I had just put this amplifier back into service, it would probably have failed catastrophically at some point, soon. In fairness, the CC resistors are ~40 years old, as my amplifiers are dated "1979". I tossed them, and I tossed the filter capacitors too, although they had been changed about 4-5 years ago after I bought the system. Only about 4 out of 8 were grossly defective, but I don't trust the remaining 4 to hold up. It was folly to have changed the caps without also changing the shunt resistors, but live and learn. Now I will rebuild with new parts.

 

Question about capacitor ratings for the cognoscenti, posted on October 20, 2020 at 11:31:50
Lew
Audiophile

Posts: 10911
Location: Bethesda, Maryland
Joined: December 11, 2000
In repairing these power supplies, I am replacing the electrolytic capacitors. As noted elsewhere, the filter uses eight (8) 47uF/450V capacitors in series with shunt resistors to promote current sharing. These 8 capacitors are in a series string from ground reference to the +3200V node, the output is also tapped at +1600V. With new capacitors and brand new shunt resistors (metal film types that measure near to exactly alike) installed, I am noting that the voltage across each capacitor varies enough such that it is darn near to the upper limit of their rating, 450V, in some cases, especially during warm up. To measure 425V across one or more of the capacitors is typical in some positions. This is likely due to differences among the capacitors in value and/or in ESR or leakage. Operating this close to the limit is bothersome. So I started to look for axial lead electrolytics in voltages rated higher than 450V. (High voltage axial leaded electrolytics are very hard to find in the first place.) I have had no luck so far except I did find that Tube Depot sells German-made F&T brand electrolytics that would fit, in 500V rated value. That's the best I have found so far, but I wonder whether the 500V rating constitutes a distinction without a difference, when compared to the 450V-rated Nichicons I have been using. In other words, the capacitor may have met some criterion to establish its voltage rating that is looser than the criterion applied to the 450V capacitors I already have. Does anyone have any experience on this? Would it be worthwhile to get the 500V rated caps or just mental masturbation? Thanks.

 

When that thing was built, posted on October 20, 2020 at 13:27:27
Ralph
Manufacturer

Posts: 4769
Location: Minnesota
Joined: April 24, 2002
It was common for the line voltage to be more like 115-117V, not the 120+ that we see now (remember the old days of 110V?...). That little bit of extra voltage might not seem like a lot, but if you're trying to build a 3200V supply, it is.

But 500V would be safer. Usually any cap can survive being at its rated limit, but in practice you want to be more like about 85% of the rating for best life. Not all the ratings are the same; if marked 'WV' that means 'working voltage' and usually a part like that will also have a surge rating. Otherwise the rating should be considered 'do not exceed unless you like really loud sounds'...

If it were me I'd be looking at reducing the AC voltage from the line. That could be done with a bucking transformer which would not be expensive.

 

RE: When that thing was built, posted on October 20, 2020 at 14:32:02
Lew
Audiophile

Posts: 10911
Location: Bethesda, Maryland
Joined: December 11, 2000
On my workbench I am using a variac, at a set point which I measured at 115 V. At 115 V I am not seeing the full 3200 V at the output. More like about 3100-3150 V. Still, a few caps are near their upper limit in rated V. When in use these amps are supplied by a PS Audio P15 set for 120V regulated. I will go with 500V rated lytics.

 

Page processed in 0.036 seconds.