Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EC Tremolux Reissue design flaws: How it affects the amp, and how to fix it.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • EC Tremolux Reissue design flaws: How it affects the amp, and how to fix it.

    Before this past week, I'd never seen this model amp before. But a customer brought one it, and the repair slip claimed that it was breaking up very "early" with not much head room. I wasn't there when it arrived, so I didn't witness the demonstration or intake. My boss suggested starting right at the output, this is a common complaint, and often is the result of one side of a push-pull output not conducting.
    So, I put load on the amp and monitored the waveform at the output. Initially, it looked like the problem was exactly as was we might expect. The scope was showing what looked like the top half of the cycle almost completely collapsed. But not as sharp as you would expect from one of the output tubes not conducting at all. I figured that the tube had just grown very week. In order to confirm this, I installed a pair of my bench tubes I use for testing. Powered the amp back up, and there was no change at all in the operation. Looked exactly as the pair the amp came in with. I'm like, "hmmm, that's weird". So I start reading idle voltages to look for something out of the ordinary, but as far as the output stage was concerned, everything looked normal. Okay... maybe one of the plate resistors in the PI.. Nope, it's a cathodyne, and both the plate and cathode resistors measured nearly identical.
    So I'm thinking, "Where the hell is this thing dropping half the waveform like that?" At that point I wanted track down a schematic and see what was going one, and I suspect you might want to see as well. So here's the schematic:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	EC Tremolux Service Manual Schematic 2011.jpg
Views:	1491
Size:	1.59 MB
ID:	953362

    At first the only schematic we could find was one someone had traced out, so it looked like they had made a mistake in the oscillator circuit. None the less, when were moving around the oscillator tube in the socket, we saw the waveform jump to life for a brief moment with the top half appearing, and with significantly more gain. When we pulled the tube out of the amp completely, we could see both the gain and shape we were expecting to see on the scope. After tracking down the official Fender schematic of the amp, it confirmed what was drawn in the other one: The LFO was being directly coupled into the cathode of the stage feeding the Cathodyne phase inverter. But the way it was done, didn't make any sense to me. (First of all, 2 consecutive DC coupled stages? Settle down, Fender) But if you look at how the stage for V2-A is designed, you can see that they use a 1.5k cathode bias with a 25µF bypass cap. This is bread and butter center biased gain stage. At least, that's clearly what they were expecting. The schematic confirms this. If you look at the expected voltage at TP10, they confidently list +1.25V. But that ain't what's happening. The way the LFO is designed, during "normal" operation, the cathode of V2-A is directly connected to the cathode load resistor of V6-B (the driver for the LFO modulator.) This alters the bias of V2-A because the cathode is now placed at the junction of R13 (1.5k) and the combined series resistances of R35 (3.3k) and R31 (68k), creating a voltage divider.
    Instead of the schematic listed 1.25V, the cathode now idles at just over +3V. This is a significant difference for a 12AX7, and pushed the stage almost to the point of cutoff.

    Look at this load line graph, and note where the -3V grid location.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	-3V Curves.png
Views:	1256
Size:	114.5 KB
ID:	953363


    Not only is the why half the waveform is lost, it results in a substantial loss of gain. The good news is, this can be corrected fairly easily. I've attached a schematic below, some changes which I think improve the overall sound of the amp, and still provide a deep, rich tremolo effect.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	EC Tremolux Schematic-w-Modification.jpg
Views:	1407
Size:	2.10 MB
ID:	953364
    If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

  • #2
    The day will come when I have to see one of these amps I'm sure. A bit THANK YOU Soul Fetish, for saving me future headaches when that day arrives. Schemo on hard drive now, and also printed for my Fender notebook.
    This isn't the future I signed up for.

    Comment


    • #3
      The new depth control looks unusual, I've not seen it done that way before; any downsides to it?
      My band:- http://www.youtube.com/user/RedwingBand

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by pdf64 View Post
        The new depth control looks unusual, I've not seen it done that way before; any downsides to it?
        Well sh*t...
        pdf, that is an excellent question. I should have probably tested that idea, even thought about it little longer. It won't work. Even though the 1M maintains the constant RC Load at that node, I would think you would end up loosing the gain needed to maintain the oscillation. I have a better idea... I think. to be continued
        If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think there must be resistor value error.
          Like R32 too high, R35 too low or R13 too high.

          Did you try to lower R13 to maybe 680R with the original wiring?

          BTW, the tremolo circuit has some similarity to the one used in the 5E9-A Tremolux: https://www.thetubestore.com/lib/the...-Schematic.pdf
          - Own Opinions Only -

          Comment


          • #6
            Full service manual attached:
            Attached Files
            Originally posted by Enzo
            I have a sign in my shop that says, "Never think up reasons not to check something."


            Comment


            • #7
              Okay, I apologize missing the fairly glaring mistake in the earlier schematic. But, I'll leave it for posterity with the important caveat that while it won't work, it's still optional .
              But hey, that's why we talk these things out
              So, here's version 2. The modification I made to the LFO circuit remains nearly identical to previous version, but earlier today I had a different idea for an "intensity" control which is quite simple. So simple in fact, it just might work!
              Here is... Helmholtz, you ready?

              Click image for larger version

Name:	EC Tremolux Schematic-w-Modification-ver2.jpg
Views:	984
Size:	1.83 MB
ID:	953462
              If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SoulFetish View Post
                Here is... Helmholtz, you ready?

                I don't see a reason why this "intensity" control shouldn't work.
                (DC across the pot might cause turning noises.)

                What about my question of post #5?


                - Own Opinions Only -

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm playing with a circuit now in Spice that uses the voltage rise with current seen at the cathode resistor in cathode biased power tubes to alternately cool the bias of a preamp stage for a compression effect. So far it's a little clunky but I'm having fun with the idea. I did as you proposed in post #5 and am currently using a lower value bias resistor for the preamp stage to correct the preamp tube bias. At least THIS aspect of the project seems to work just fine. I'm getting varied voltage from a more useful standing bias point on the affected preamp stage.
                  "Take two placebos, works twice as well." Enzo

                  "Now get off my lawn with your silicooties and boom-chucka speakers and computers masquerading as amplifiers" Justin Thomas

                  "If you're not interested in opinions and the experience of others, why even start a thread?
                  You can't just expect consent." Helmholtz

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Chuck, isn’t this ultimately negative (or positive, bootstrapping) feedback? I’mean, without a change to the steady state of the DC?
                    If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Chuck H View Post
                      I'm playing with a circuit now in Spice that uses the voltage rise with current seen at the cathode resistor in cathode biased power tubes to alternately cool the bias of a preamp stage for a compression effect..
                      Interesting idea.

                      I think it's a kind of negative feedback, but not signal feedback - at least if bypass caps are large enough.
                      The result will be a moderate dynamic compression effect when the power tubes leave the class A region.
                      So there's a built-in lower threshold.
                      Last edited by Helmholtz; 02-25-2022, 12:50 AM.
                      - Own Opinions Only -

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Helmholtz View Post

                        Interesting idea.

                        I think it's a kind of negative feedback, but not signal feeback - at least if bypass caps are large enough.
                        Bingo. And the need for larger caps to keep it a strictly DC circuit is the clunky part. The charge time is messing with the attack envelope. But I'm still playing with it and I didn't want to derail the thread. I just wanted to reinforce the idea of dropping the cathode resistor value on the affected preamp triode.
                        Last edited by Chuck H; 02-25-2022, 01:18 AM.
                        "Take two placebos, works twice as well." Enzo

                        "Now get off my lawn with your silicooties and boom-chucka speakers and computers masquerading as amplifiers" Justin Thomas

                        "If you're not interested in opinions and the experience of others, why even start a thread?
                        You can't just expect consent." Helmholtz

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Chuck H View Post

                          Bingo. And the need for larger caps to keep it a strictly DC circuit is the clunky part. The charge time is messing with the attack envelope. But I'm still playing with it and I didn't want to derail the thread. I just wanted to reinforce the idea of dropping the cathode resistor value on the affected preamp triode.
                          Ah, okay, for some reason I must have missed that the stage was bypassed. That makes my comment moot, because you are basically level shifting the DC, for some duration anyway.
                          Carry on...
                          If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Helmholtz View Post
                            I think there must be resistor value error.
                            Like R32 too high, R35 too low or R13 too high.
                            yes, clearly

                            Did you try to lower R13 to maybe 680R with the original wiring?
                            I didn't. Here's my reasoning: First, I dig DC coupling in many cases, however, I didn't see how it offered any advantage in this design. If anything, I thought there were unnecessary risks to the stability V2-A operation in certain failure modes of the oscillator tube, or if someone decided to tube roll another tube type. Not overly concerned about that. If it were already functioning properly, probably stays stock. But, I kind of think the modified circuit is an overall improvement, if only a modest one.


                            BTW, the tremolo circuit has some similarity to the one used in the 5E9-A Tremolux: https://www.thetubestore.com/lib/the...-Schematic.pdf
                            that's interesting. It does share some similarities.

                            If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X