Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help understanding rectifier in super twin reverb

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

  • Help understanding rectifier in super twin reverb

    I'm using the chasis and PT/OT of a super twin reverb in an ongoing build/experiment. I'm currently running 4x6V6's in it, having built an AB763 style front-end and other various experiments/mods (dropped the B+ w/zener's, adjustable bias, etc...).

    I've got both of Merlin Blencowe's books and have pretty much read them cover to cover. I'm also going through Gerald Weber's "Tube Guitar Amplifier Essentials". In the latter on pg 338, Weber describes a "Full-wave economy power supply", with the center tap of the PT sandwiched between two end-to-end stacked filter caps, eliminating the need for balancing resistors across the caps. The super twin power supply has this configuration, however it also has two 33k resistors across the caps (please see attached).

    Click image for larger version

Name:	str_rectifier.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	27.6 KB
ID:	864921

    Blencowe's "Power Supplies for Tube Amplifiers" book has a pretty thorough treatment of rectifiers, but doesn't really cover the aforementioned "full-wave economy power supply". On pg 31 he does show a configuration in fig 2.16h that is similar, but only as an example of how to get two different voltages out of a full-wave rectifier (and there are no balancing resistors).

    Questions;

    1. In the super twin, are the 33k 2w balancing resistors needed? With the center-tap sandwiched between the caps, Weber seems to say "no".

    2. I was toying with the idea of a half-power switch, that would switch between the B+ for the power tubes from the center-tap of the OT (which should be half the B+) between the two caps and the regular B+, the other side of the switch would also swap a bias resistor - sort of a poor-mans power scaling. The front-end (pi/reverb/preamp) would still pull the full B+. Thoughts on this? Has it been tried?

    Thank you!

  • #2
    1) They are not needed to balance the voltage on the caps but they do discharge the caps after you turn the amp off. This is a safety precaution. The 220uF caps really pack a lethal punch.

    2) Actually at 1/2 the B+ voltage it would be more like a 1/4 power switch. Several Fender amps do this. One is the Fender issued Sunn Model T.
    WARNING! Musical Instrument amplifiers contain lethal voltages and can retain them even when unplugged. Refer service to qualified personnel.
    REMEMBER: Everybody knows that smokin' ain't allowed in school !

    Comment


    • #3
      Another Fender amp with the 1/4 power switch is the 75.
      http://www.webphix.com/schematic%20h...r_75_schem.pdf
      which has 100k 'balancing' resistors.
      As power is related the V squared, when the voltage halves, the power quarters (correct word?). 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25
      This method leaves the 'full' B+ on the pre-amp, just selecting 'half' or 'full' B+ for the power tubes.
      I don't recommend this sytem however; the switching arrangement can get complex, the bais supply doesn't lend itself to being adjustable so needs reworking and there's little tonal benefit.
      For me, a stressed power supply is a big part of an overdriven amp's character, but the power supply in these amps, especially on 1/4 power, is rather stiff.
      But if you enjoy technical exercise / challange then give it a go.
      Pete.
      My band:- http://www.youtube.com/user/RedwingBand

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by loudthud View Post
        1) They are not needed to balance the voltage on the caps but they do discharge the caps after you turn the amp off. This is a safety precaution. The 220uF caps really pack a lethal punch.
        Indeed they do. Thanks for clearing up the purpose of those resistors. I was confused because Weber said they could be eliminated if the center-tap of the PT is placed between the caps.

        Originally posted by pdf64 View Post
        Another Fender amp with the 1/4 power switch is the 75.
        http://www.webphix.com/schematic%20h...r_75_schem.pdf
        which has 100k 'balancing' resistors.
        As power is related the V squared, when the voltage halves, the power quarters (correct word?). 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25
        This method leaves the 'full' B+ on the pre-amp, just selecting 'half' or 'full' B+ for the power tubes.
        I don't recommend this sytem however; the switching arrangement can get complex, the bais supply doesn't lend itself to being adjustable so needs reworking and there's little tonal benefit.
        For me, a stressed power supply is a big part of an overdriven amp's character, but the power supply in these amps, especially on 1/4 power, is rather stiff.
        But if you enjoy technical exercise / challange then give it a go.
        Pete.
        Well thanks for that! I was also wondering where schematicheaven had gone off to!

        It's good to see that I was at least on the right track with this. I'll probably hard wire it up just to see how it sounds (after all, that's the fun part) - I really just want to see how the quad of 6V6's sound w/a much lower B+ voltage. Agree w/you about the stressed power supply.

        Thanks again,

        Wag

        Comment


        • #5
          I wired this up yesterday.

          I simply connected the B+ to the middle of the caps/centertap of the PT. This gave me about 260v B+ for the entire amp (i.e. didn't connect the pi/reverb/preamp separately). I had to drop the bias resistor down to 2k to get current to flow through the 6V6's. Biased it up and tried it. Sounded pretty bad. Not horrible, just not good. When I turned up the amp (and it was still very loud, btw), the breakup was just sort of fuzzy.

          Decided not to bother running the poweramp w/a separate (lowered) b+ as the drop in vol just wasn't there to make it worthwhile. At some point I might try it but ran out of time yesterday.

          Interesting experiment, but didn't yield good tonal results so far.

          Comment

          Working...
          X