The Immortal Amplifier

General discussion area for tube amps.

Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal

R.G.
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:01 pm

The Immortal Amplifier

Post by R.G. »

The thread on electrolytic caps used when a film would do nicely got me back on the Immortal Amplifier. Electrolytic caps simply wear out. If you're lucky, they last a long time, but a decade is pretty good life, and five years for a hard working gigging amp is not bad. But they're still going to die someday.

A few years back I came up with what I called the Immortal Amplifier: replace everything that wears out with things that have very, very long life spans. The number one target was electrolytics. Parts of this suite of mods were listed in my article in Premier Guitar back in 2008: https://www.premierguitar.com/the-immor ... lifier-mod

Very early tube gear (up to about the mid 1950s) generally used film capacitors for the filter caps. They were heavy, expensive, and lasted semi-forever. Consumer goods went to electrolytics when they got cheap enough, because they were small and light weight. Today, we can make film caps that are only a few times bigger than twist-lock cans, and not dramatically more expensive. Motor-run film caps exist that can be stuffed or mounted on a guitar amp chassis instead of electros, and these will last about as long as the chassis itself. An amp built with motor run caps for the rectifier and dropper string caps would never need those replaced, even for an expected 60-100 year life.

You can't make tubes effectively immortal: that's why they're in sockets, per the engineer's mantra - if you can't make it last forever, make it easy to replace. They're just going to wear out someday. In a guitar amp, the real baddies are the power tubes, both output and rectifier. These can fail in a way that takes out other stuff. You really don't want a failed rectifier or output tube to take out a transformer, as the PT and OT are usually the second and third most costly parts to replace.

So for a tube rectifier rig, it makes sense to put in back-up diodes in series with the rectifier tube. The tube can then fail shorted and not kill the PT, OT, first filter cap, or output tubes. The DC voltage just rises a bit. You might not even notice. I've recently done a batch of work on making diodes zeners and resistors curve-matched to the V-I characteristics of a tube rectifier, so a tube rectifier might not even be needed, even for those who maintain they can hear solid state diodes. A curve-matched rectifier setup comes really, really, really close to the actual tube.

Transformers are another biggie. They normally don't wear out, but other faults kill them. The long-term cure for transformer death is to (1) add MOV clamps to keep transients from punching through the wire insulation and (2) fuse each separate winding so that overcurrents can't get the wires hot enough to decompose the wire insulation in hot spots.

The stacked diodes from ground to output tube plates is one form of transient protection. This dodge uses the diodes in avalanche mode so that the leakage inductance flyback on sudden current stoppages for the opposite-side tube can't arc the insulation inside the transformer. This works mostly, but is not all that predictable. A 3kV string of TVSS diodes across the OT primary would probably be more predictable.

MOVs on the AC voltage in would protect against AC line transients, and are small and cheap. It is seductive to think that a single AC mains fuse will protect the PT. Sadly, this is not so. That fuse is to keep an already failed amplifier from burning down the building and is required to pass most safety standards. A fuse in each side of the high voltage winding, one in each half of a center tapped heater winding, one in the rectifier heater winding if it's a tube rectifier, and so on will limit the current for each winding, so that the fuse trip can be set for that specific winding. On the OT you can probably get away with a single one in the CT as that's the only place current comes from.

The list goes on: think about how amplifiers you have known and loved have died. If a simple part substitution can prevent a class of deaths, think about whether the time and money to put in a protection will remove that class of amplifier deaths. The power supply and power output stages are the most fertile places to look, as this is where most non-tube deaths happen, along with the known wear-out of electrolytics.

This isn't by any means all-encompassing. It's more of an invitation to think.

Every time I have posted this, someone notes that adding more stuff can make reliability worse by adding more stuff to break. This is true. But if the projected lifetime of the added stuff and projected failure rate and ease of repair makes it quicker, cheaper, and simpler to repair added-stuff failures than what it protects, this can still be a winner. The biggie seems to be all those fuses; fuses DO have a wear-out mechanism, and contact oxidation, etc. can make them less reliable. True - so use good fuse holders and fuses. Same goes for any protective equipment; it doesn't make sense to buy only the cheapest fire extinguishers. :lol:
"It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
Mark Twain
User avatar
martin manning
Posts: 14058
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:43 am
Location: 39°06' N 84°30' W

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by martin manning »

Good food for thought as always.
R.G. wrote: Wed May 28, 2025 2:31 pm So for a tube rectifier rig, it makes sense to put in back-up diodes in series with the rectifier tube. The tube can then fail shorted and not kill the PT, OT, first filter cap, or output tubes. The DC voltage just rises a bit. You might not even notice. I've recently done a batch of work on making diodes zeners and resistors curve-matched to the V-I characteristics of a tube rectifier, so a tube rectifier might not even be needed, even for those who maintain they can hear solid state diodes. A curve-matched rectifier setup comes really, really, really close to the actual tube.
If you only have room for one diode per phase, best to use a 2kV rating. Zeners can be noisy, as I found out when working on a SiC Varistor replacement, so that might be an issue for your SS rectifier.
R.G. wrote: Wed May 28, 2025 2:31 pm MOVs on the AC voltage in would protect against AC line transients, and are small and cheap.
And soft-start everything else, especially tube heaters, possibly extending tube life.
Helmholtz
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2024 8:02 pm
Location: Germany

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by Helmholtz »

An MOV (metal oxide varistor) is a bidirectional voltage dependent resistor used to clamp and absorb voltage spikes above its threshold voltage.
It cannot be used to limit an inrush current like an NTC (thermistor).
R.G.
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by R.G. »

martin manning wrote: Wed May 28, 2025 3:38 pm If you only have room for one diode per phase, best to use a 2kV rating. Zeners can be noisy, as I found out when working on a SiC Varistor replacement, so that might be an issue for your SS rectifier.
Yeah, you have to have enough reverse voltage rating. I've used 1.2kV single FREDs for rectifiers and they lived, but as long as you're sticking in diodes, another pair won't be amiss. A single 1N4007 is probably not a good idea. Picking normal slam-off silicon types is likely a bad idea too; FREDs or UFxxxx would be better.

Zeners can be noisy, all right. However, the zeners in a curve-faking rectifier emulation only conduct for at most the conduction period of the rectifier emulator, and their noise is being dumped into the first filter cap. Ideally, the first filter cap would be film, and this would contain the vast majority (if not all) of the current noise the zener would contribute. I think it would take some good instrumentation to find the zener noise on B+ in a case like this.
R.G. wrote: Wed May 28, 2025 2:31 pm MOVs on the AC voltage in would protect against AC line transients, and are small and cheap.
And soft-start everything else, especially tube heaters, possibly extending tube life.
[/quote]
Yeah. I did a soft start for B+, as shown here: http://geofex.com/Article_Folders/mosfe ... 0Clamp.pdf
The idea is to use a beefy MOSFET to prevent current from exceeding X amperes out of the rectifiers and into the first filter cap. The first filter cap can then NOT pull a giant inrush current at power on, only a little more than the current the rectifiers handle at full output power. This would also extend the life of a tube rectifier before it by keeping the current surges from eating away at the rectifier cathodes.

The heaters are harder. I put an inrush limiter in the form of an NTC resistor in the Workhorse amps back in the early 2000s. Worked great as regards limiting inrush. There were issues with the time it took for the heaters to get up to temp, though. If you're limiting the inrush to what amounts to an incandescent bulb filament, you have to juggle the amount of inrush you let happen versus the time it takes to get to temp. Heater inrush eats a big pulse of current, but that current also heats the filament FAST too. Slow the inrush, slow down time to operation. Some of the NTCs would interact with heater loads to stabilize at a low current and never quite get up to speed.

If I were designing a heater-current management circuit, I would start with something like a bidirectional variant of the current clamp. It's trickier because of the low amount of voltage available to use. In considering soft start for heaters, you'd need to consider the possibility of the inrush overheating the transformer, but mitigated by heater winding fuses, and the startup time of the tubes, versus the need to replace tubes. Tubes are already easy-ish to replace and going to fail on their own, so the tradeoff of lowering the inrush of heater current is not clear to me without some more thought. In general, inrush=bad, but this one has a lot of factors to consider.
"It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
Mark Twain
R.G.
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by R.G. »

Helmholtz wrote: Wed May 28, 2025 4:47 pm An MOV (metal oxide varistor) is a bidirectional voltage dependent resistor used to clamp and absorb voltage spikes above its threshold voltage.
It cannot be used to limit an inrush current like an NTC (thermistor).
I think there was more of an implied full-stop between the MOV section of the sentence and the soft-start part of the sentence. Anyway, that's how I read it.

You're right, MOVs are voltage limiters, NTCs are current limiters. Not the same.
"It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
Mark Twain
User avatar
martin manning
Posts: 14058
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:43 am
Location: 39°06' N 84°30' W

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by martin manning »

R.G. wrote: Wed May 28, 2025 4:53 pm I put an inrush limiter in the form of an NTC resistor in the Workhorse amps back in the early 2000s. Worked great as regards limiting inrush. There were issues with the time it took for the heaters to get up to temp, though. If you're limiting the inrush to what amounts to an incandescent bulb filament, you have to juggle the amount of inrush you let happen versus the time it takes to get to temp.
And NTC thermistor is what I was thinking. These have been standard on Fender amps for some time, and seem to work fine.
R.G.
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by R.G. »

Good. I suspect that my single-guy abilities to select NTCs led me to a non-optimal choice. Some of them worked GREAT, others OK if slow, and some had to taken out and replaced with a wire.
"It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
Mark Twain
User avatar
Colossal
Posts: 5171
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:04 pm
Location: Moving through Kashmir

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by Colossal »

I am putting an amp together right now with RG's MOV protection method for the OT; one each between the plate and centertap leads for a cathode biased push-pull pair of EL34s.
R.G.
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by R.G. »

Colossal wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 2:55 am I am putting an amp together right now with RG's MOV protection method for the OT; one each between the plate and centertap leads for a cathode biased push-pull pair of EL34s.
Neat! I would appreciate your opinion on any tone changes this might cause, if you can take the time to listen with and without. MOVs have few nF of capacitance, and it is possible that this could change high frequency response a bit. I've tried it, and tested for response, but never seen any real effect; but I can see that some circuits might be sensitive to it.

Last time this got discussed, someone mentioned TVSS devices, which are more of a zener and less of a variable resistance device like a MOV. TVSS will clamp like a zener in both directions at its breakover voltage and have lower capacitance, so less of a chance to affect high frequency response. They have lower power ratings, but this isn't really a high power application, so they might work OK.
"It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
Mark Twain
nuke
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:59 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by nuke »

The most immortal amp I know of is the Peavey CS-800. I still see those in continuous service since the 1970's. Sondermeyer was a smart engineer.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have the Fender Blues Junior. Which are enormously popular and have been in continuous production for over 30 years now. The cost, size, weight, power, features make this a very, very popular amp among gigging guitarists. It's not "immortal" by a long shot either. It is deeply, "cost constrained" to put it mildly. On the other hand, they do the job. At about $700 new, and considerably less in good used condition, they do fit a budget.

I don't repair amps for a living, and haven't for decades. But I support some of my player friends who use these amps to earn a living. They're not that hard to work on, once you resolve yourself to the best way to service them. (troubleshoot first, then just remove all the boards from the amp at once, it only takes about 5 minutes once you know how).

The most common cause of failure I have seen in the real world is misuse, usually unintentional or simply not-understanding the consequences of some crazy idea done intentionally. That and wear and tear from bouncing around in the trunk of a car from gig to gig.
User avatar
mhuss
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:09 am
Location: SE PA, USA
Contact:

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by mhuss »

nuke wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 7:18 pm The most immortal amp I know of is the Peavey CS-800.
We used a pair of them back in the day for our PA. I remember replacing a lot of output transistors (which were fortunately socketed). To be fair, unless you have a whole matched set of outputs, mismatched Betas etc., will cause more failures than a stock set.
nuke
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:59 pm
Location: Silicon Valley

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by nuke »

mhuss wrote: Thu May 29, 2025 7:58 pm We used a pair of them back in the day for our PA. I remember replacing a lot of output transistors (which were fortunately socketed). To be fair, unless you have a whole matched set of outputs, mismatched Betas etc., will cause more failures than a stock set.
The only time I ever saw them fail was as a result of misuse, which once they wound up in the rigs of bass players, was not uncommon in the early-mid 1980's.

That's when I learned how good Peavey support was. Schematics? No Problem. Parts and technical support, no problem. They clued me in as a young tech working my way through school that Peavey graded their transistors into sets and that I would be best off replacing them with factory-selected parts, instead of the ECG generic cross-reference transistors. They were 100% right. Their parts were cheaper too.

Sondermeyer, Peavey's chief engineer, was a support engineer at RCA's semiconductor division before he moved to Peavey. He knew his way around transistors and such.
R.G.
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by R.G. »

I guess I really need to start calling it the Immortal >>Tube<< Amplifier; The Peavey CS800 may have the unqualified "immortal" tied up! :D

From the other thread on why Fender used an electro in their fixed bias supply (here: https://ampgarage.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 6&start=15), I think I need to add a bias supply mod to the Immortal Amp.

Using a Fender Twin as a starting point, Fender used a 100uF 100V electro for the bias filter, followed by a 3.3K, a 10K pot, and a 27K to ground for the bias adjuster. 100uF/100V is an expensive thing to find in straight up film caps, as well as being scarce. From some modelling and simulation, I found that replacing the 100uF electro with a 22uF/100V/$3.00 film cap and then putting a 2.2uF/$0.50 film after the 3.3k in the resistor string, there was actually a bit less ripple in the bias voltage going out of the pot. Adding a third 2.2uF film dropped the ripple at the bias pot again, to way less than the stock 100uF cap.

This is right in line with the Immortal Amp philosophy: replace electros with caps that don't have built-in failure mechanisms.

Is this necessary? Shoot, no. But you'll never need to replace those electros in that amp again. In my mind, this is a more useful way to spend your time than flipping resistors end for end to see if they're directional. :lol:
"It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
Mark Twain
User avatar
martin manning
Posts: 14058
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:43 am
Location: 39°06' N 84°30' W

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by martin manning »

I am partial to this bias circuit which uses the R in the CRC filter to drop the voltage. It fails to the raw bias voltage (on C1) in the event of a bias pot failure, either from the wiper losing contact or its element cracking. A member here recently had the element crack at the rivet on the wrong end of the pot, which left the output grids floating.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
R.G.
Posts: 1453
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:01 pm

Re: The Immortal Amplifier

Post by R.G. »

martin manning wrote: Fri May 30, 2025 3:19 pm I am partial to this bias circuit which uses the R in the CRC filter to drop the voltage. It fails to the raw bias voltage (on C1) in the event of a bias pot failure, either from the wiper losing contact or an element cracking. A member here recently had the element crack at the rivet on the wrong end of the pot, which left the output grids floating.
That's good practice. I'm a little appalled that Fender didn't worry about opened wipers in the first place.

The second stage of filtering is a real help in getting ripple reduced to the actual bias voltage, however you do it. I probably would not have gone into this except for looking for a way to use only film caps instead of electros, but electros are just as good (and cheaper!) if you're not after not ever replacing them,
"It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"
Mark Twain
Post Reply