Dynakit Stereo 70 - My Introduction to Tubes

I would second replacing the output tubes and the 7199's with replacements while you recondition the amp. The Tube Depot has JJ EL34's for very reasonable prices and will match them for you. Good 7199's are scarce as hen's teeth and expensive as all hell. Pick up a pair of 6GH8A to 7199 tube converter adapters and a pair of 6GH8's for the preamps. Use those tubes in the amp until after you have stabilized the power supply and bias supply and have used it for for several 10's of hours once the work is complete.

Shelly_D
 
I tend to leave selenium stuff alone in low current applications like this since they rarely fail provided the filter caps aren't shorted. I'd be far more worried about the can cap and the other bias caps than the rectifier. No, its not as reliable as a modern diode but its less likely to cause you trouble than a 50 year old electrolytic cap.

You're correct that the problem with selenium rectifiers is not inherent unreliability. The problem is overloading. Consumer equipment routinely overloaded the rectifiers causing routine failure. I saw one manufacturer's literature which specified a low current rating for long lifespan and a higher one for consumer electronics. Similar values exist for cooling. The selenium rectifiers used for DC welders are still running fine after fifty years. But try that with one used in a piece of HiFi toTV equipment. So the rectifier, having been abused and overheated, has a shorter lifespan.

The replacement is inexpensive. So it's better to replace the selenium rectifiers with solid state and add a resistor to approximate the internal resistance which, of course, is non-linear. But that wasn't a design feature, it was a limitation of components in that time.
 
For the chassis... I recommend not using a polish. The chassis has a thin electroplate and polishes can eat away at it (guess how I know?). Damp rag for the surface dust and such is fine. Then, I suggest a car wax, but, again, not a polish.

Oh, yes, car polish is far too aggressive for a chassis. It's designed to remove the oxidized surface layer of paint or clearcoat.

But a fine polish, such as Mother's Mag and Aluminum or Gorham's Silver Polish has a very mild abrasive which removes very little material, far less than the car cleaners. Not enough to damage the surface. Perfectly safe for silver plate, for example. I've used it on remove hard silver sulfides which otherwise would not give up and die, as well as for removing oxides and sulfides from silver contacts in rotary switches. Try it on a test spot and see what it does.

While one can seal the surface, this is typically unnecessary with a cleaner having a decent anti-corrosion additive. Instead of car wax, one might try a microcrystalline wax which is much harder, less prone to oxidation, and therefore more robust. This is what museums use on metal sculpture to protect against corrosion. It costs a lot more than car wax, and consumers typically can't tell the difference, which is why it isn't widely used in consumer products.

For the socket contacts... I have favored interdental brushes and 91% or better isopropyl. Deoxit is fine for after an initial cleaning with the brushes and alcohol, but bear in mind that if you ever desolder/resolder to the socket contacts later, the temperature will likely exceed the Deoxit's temperature limit. There is no clear answer I have ever found as far as exactly what happens to Deoxit when subjected to soldering temperatures. However, after all of the soldering is finished, some have said that surfaces previously treated with Deoxit can then be recleaned with, for instance, the alcohol, and then the Deoxit reapplied.

The dental brushes are great. +1 on that suggestion. Inexpensive and available in different sizes. Why pay five times the price for the same product with a fancy name and package?

DeOxIt comes in different varieties. The basic formulation is a cleaner, some stearate plus a solvent carrier. The fancier version adds a fluorocarbons, difluoroethane, as a cleaner. The anti-corrosion additive is likely something simple and safe, like EDTA or benzotriazole or something similar. When heated any residue will volatilize. Look up the ingredients and the boiling points. It's not going to corrode anything.

Oxygen and sulfur are the big causes of corrosion.

PS - I think it would also be worth asking the manufacturer of Deoxit if it is approved for all kinds of metals or only certain kinds. IIRC, the original Dynaco socket contacts were cadmium plated.

DeOxIt will work on any metal oxides or sulfides by virtue of the chemistry.

The problem with cadmium-plated chassis, of course, is that the corrosion is toxic, as was the original metal, so the removed material is also toxic. So any company contacted should warn you about the risks.

Cadmium

Cadmium degrades it two ways.
(1) Cadmium + sulfur in the air produces cadmium sulfide (CdS), a green-yellow powder.
(2) Cadmium + oxygen and moisture produces cadmium oxide (CdO), a white powder.​

Both are toxic. The lungs well absorb it as does the GI tract. You do NOT want to have it airborne, so do NOT remove it indoors.

I suggest you read up on safe removal, which requires a mask and nitrile gloves, and doing it outside. The cloth/towels/rags are technically low-level hazardous waste, but nobody's going to take you away to the gulag if you just bag them in the trash instead of taking to the hazardous waste cleanup. You just don't want the dust to end up on your clothes and be brought inside your home. That's the big issue.

BTW: the hazard of cadmium is why RoHS misguidedly banned CdS photocells. The amount is trivial and bound in an epoxy layer, so no way is it getting out. But that's the nature of RoHS.

Metal Cleaners and Polishes

Here's a discussion I previously posted about metal cleaners and polishes, with some edits for clarity.

Metal cleaners and polishes are made from a few simple ingredients:
(1) mild acid (commonly citric, sulfamic, oxalic, etc.) to break up the metal oxides, salts, and sulfides so these may be complexed into something soluble.

(2) surfactant (wetting agent) or detergent (cleaning agent), such as oleic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid, to form soluble metallic soaps which will dissolve in the carrier, and to make the polish spreadable across a metal surface by reducing the carrier's surface tension. A chelating agent (EDTA) are often added to bind to corrosion oxides and make them soluble in a water carrier, but the chelating agent also is a corrosion inhibitor (see below).

(3) solvent carrier (water or petroleum, typically deodorized kerosene or naptha), usually with some petroleum solvent or organic solvent like acetone to better dissolve and remove any polymerized (crosslinked) oils and other dirt, including monomer (the building block for polymers)

(4) Corrosion inhibitor, commonly EDTA or .benzotriazole. Because EDTA is a chelating agent it binds to the now exposed metal surface preventing oxygen and sulfur from binding, hence corrosion inhibitor. Two for the price of one. Saves money in manufacturing.

(5) optionally, in polish, a fine abrasive to assist in gently breaking up the hard oxide layer without removing significant material from the surface.​
The remaining ingredients tend to be thickeners and pH adjusters.

DeOxIt is a cleaner, not a polish, and is a combination of stearic acids, again to dissolve and solubilize the metal corrosion, in a hydrocarbon carrier. It's non-abrasive and likely relies upon the mechanical force of the contacts moving against each other, potentially plus the abrasive effect of removed material, to break up the corrosion layer.

The fancier DeOxIT Gold adds difluoroethane to the mix to better remove those metal salts. Chloroflurocarbons are wonderful solvents, which is why industry used them for decades, just letting them evaporate after use and thereby destroying the ozone layer. Difluoroethane is not as seriously ozone depleting as the CFCs it replaced, and it photodegrades in a few years, more or less, and is often used as a relatively safe propellant and cleaning solvent, as long as it is not deliberately concentrated and inhaled.

Because DeOxIt doesn't contain an abrasive it will tend to need some mechanical force to remove hardened corrosion from pins. Again, this is normally provided by the friction of the switch contacts making and breaking as the switch is moved.

Adding a mild abrasive helps to break up the hard surface of the salts, oxides, and sulfides so they may better complex with the stearate and be removed. This is why the Nev-R-Dull wadding polish uses a more abrasive cutting agent to faster remove corrosion. It is also why museums won't use wadding polishes on metal objects, as the abrasive removes surface material, not merely the undesired corrosion.

Electrical connectors can be cleaned using any fine polish, such as Mother's Mag and Aluminum Polish or the 3M Mag and Aluminum Polish, or the very similar 3M Chrome and Metal Polish. Blue Magic is similar, but not as effective. My experience has been these three work better than the common household polishes like Noxon or Brasso, or the Gorham Silver Polish. All of which I have in my house, BTW. The Noxon and Brasso will generally not deliver the same mirror bright finish that the Mother's Mag, 3M, and Blue Magic can create.

Just wipe the surface down with a petroleum or terpene solvent to remove any residue.

I polished the chassis for a Dynaco PAM-1 power supply and removed all of the greenish gunk and left the chassis mirror bright without any damage to the silkscreen. It wasn't great to start, but it looked much better when I finished. I suggest carefully using it in an inconspicuous test spot to verify its suitablity for any chassis.
 
A low-noise diode (low Qrr) would be better than the 1N series. Plus a dropping resistor to approximate the internal resistance of the selenium rectifier.
Not sure that fancy diodes are truly necessary in an application such as this. I used a plain ol' 1N4006 to replace the selenium rectifier in my ST-70, and haven't noticed any issues with its ability to bias up.
To keep things simple and not introduce multiple variables, I thought I'd try removing the tubes and reinserting, in case a bad / intermittent connection was causing the noise. I realize I need to actually clean the tube contacts, and I have Deoxit and brushes on the way. The tubes were really tight! I'm not sure of the recommended method for removing tubes, but inserting a 3/16" flat screwdriver between the tube base and socket and using it as a lever to gently move the tubes worked. I did this at about 6-7 places around the tube, and actually went around twice. I only pried enough to see the tube base move from the socket the slightest bit. At any rate, the tubes were then removable. I reinserted them in the same locations and gave it another listen. I'm happy to report that after about 45 minutes of listening, the static and rhythmic thumping / popping was gone. I put an ear to each speaker with nothing playing and heard only the very slightest hiss. It was certainly less than I've heard on most amplifiers. I noted no hum, either, which tells me that this is def. a quiet amplifier. The only noise I could detect at all was a very slight hum from the power transformer. I'm not sure if I could hear it as much as feel it. The amp is sitting on a plastic folding table at the moment, and I know that amplifies any sort of vibration.

What's the best cleaner for the nickel base? So far, I've just used a damp rag to remove the dirt. There's very little pitting, and I'd like to polish it up some. As for parts needing replacement, I'm getting an order together. I've downloaded manuals and will go over them. I'm sure I'll have many questions along the way regarding component replacement!
Nice to hear that you've eliminated the noise! If it decides to come back, try the 7199 swap I mentioned. No re-biasing of anything should be necessary. Noise after the tubes warm up usually points to a tube issue, but pin contacts are another possibility.

The hum from the power transformer is fairly normal. It's also normal for them to get rather warm after a few minutes. Mine has run hot for the 15+ years I've owned it, yet it still works somehow. Hope this helps!
-Adam
 
Not sure that fancy diodes are truly necessary in an application such as this. I used a plain ol' 1N4006 to replace the selenium rectifier in my ST-70, and haven't noticed any issues with its ability to bias up.

It's not about a lack of bias; any diode of suitable voltage and current ratings would rectify. It's about broadcasting noise and stimulating ringing of the transformer.

This is pieced together from some other writeups I've made, slightly edited for clarity.

Broadcasting Noise

A diode has capacitance because a PN junction (depletion region) has an electric field potential across it; two plates separate by an insulator equals a capacitor.

During the reversal portion of each AC cycle—when a rectifier diode does not conduct—the diode must first dump the stored charge so that the junction potential can drop low enough to turn off. (Happens in transistors, too.) That charge cannot go back towards the transformer, because the diode is not conducting in that direction, so it heads to the filter capacitors. Voltage climbs until current can flow, and when it flows it is very sudden and occurs in a small timeframe; this is a high-frequency noise burst. So high frequency it's hundreds of kHz. But it is regular because it happens at the zero crossing every AC cycle. That regular burst of RF energy is a carrier wave, and it becomes AM modulated by the harmonics of the 60Hz AC cycle, or 120Hz if bridge rectified. The diode leads or connecting wires, if long, will act as broadcast antennas. That signal is then received throughout the amplifier and, if stopper resistors do not ruin the Q, will be amplified.

The magic phrases on the datasheets for this stored charge are “Reverse Recovery Charge” or “Reverse Recovery Current", usually denoted as "Qrr" but sometimes as "Irec". Ordinary diodes have a lot more capacitance, so much more stored charge, and thus more noise. A Schottky Barrier Diode has « 20 nC and a standard diode has » 500nC. FREDs, SS, and UFs are in the middle. So the range is about a factory of thirty, pretty impressive.

Ringing

The other problem is transformer ringing resulting from being stimulated by Qrr. Remember, this is a tank circuit: inductor (parasitic inductance of windings) and capacitor (parasitic capacitance of windings). Rings and is damped. Every single cycle.

Solution

An RC snubber can be placed across the diode to take that very short pulse (i.e. high frequency) and pass it from one side of the diode to the other side, thus giving the current a path to take so it is dissipated as heat in the resistor. The RC forms a high-pass filter, but it isn't perfect. That's why the size of the resistor controls how much current is passed. Some snubbers eliminate the resistor and rely upon the ESR of the capacitor. The resistor must, of course, be sized to handle high currents for short times and handle the aggregate power dissipation. A tiny snubber capacitors of about 10nf (0.01µF) wired in parallel with the diode. Removes the noise, cleans up the power supply, costs next to nothing.

Diode Selection

So you can readily evaluate the tradeoffs between the diode types:
Schottky Barrier Diode has Qrr < 20 nc.
Regular Schottky has a Qrr ~ 50 nc.
FRED varies with temperature, 30ºC Qrr ~ 150 nC , rising to 450 nC @ 150º. (As bad as ordinary silicon!)
Ultra Fast Recovery Diode varies with voltage, @600 V Qrr ~ 150 nc
Vanilla silicon had Qrr ~ 500 nc.​

The 1N series is not a good choice. 500 nC Qrr vs 20 for the SBD. Cost to get a better diode is very low, maybe a few dollars.
 
Retro, could you just give a diode part number to the OP, as an alternative to a 1N4006?
 
Bypassing the diode with a small value film cap also helps with this. The original bias diodes in my 1960 Sherwood were done that way.
 
It's not a carrier wave in the kHz because it is not sustained. It's a one time short, tiny pulse, if it is even there. It is not modulated by the harmonics of the line frequency or half-wave, because it is not sustained. It's a one time tiny, microsecond, spec of a charge that in this case also goes through resistors and capacitors on the way to provide the bias voltage. It doesn't ring through the amp as radiated RF and create NOISE or ill effects.

The pulse happens every time the diode switches, so it is a carrier wave. That pulse also stimulates ringing for the reasons I described.

The transformer does ring. Mark Johnson over at DIYaudio has designed two automated transformer ringing detectors which allow snubbers to be developed: Quasimodo and Cheapomodo.

Here's what I posted about it some time back:

No math, no sliderule, no theory, just connect to the transformer then tweak as one watches the scope until the ringing vanishes. This is the way to eliminate ringing, instead of laboriously solving equations which tend to not work in practice.

Quasimodo is the fancy one (no kits left):

Cheapomodo is the latest incarnation. Not as fancy, but it should more than do the trick. Description:

Some Cheapomodo kits remain available for $13 delivered:
Disclaimer: I have no connection to MJ except as a highly satisfied customer. YMMV.
 
John Camille disccussed such noise in Sound Practices in 1994.
Development of a 211 Amplifier, Part 3: Reducing Diode Noise
by John Camille (Chimera Labs)
Sound Practices (1994, Fall)​

Done properly, silicon diode supplies can be built that are quieter than untreated vacuum diode designs. One must remember that vacuum diodes also generate a significant amount of white noise that should be corralled in better designs.

Noise reduction for either vacuum or silicon diode rectifiers is a worthwhile undertaking. When silicon diode noise is controlled, the reliability factor and the virtually limitless lifespan of solid state diodes in properly designed supplies points toward the choice of silicon rectifier devices over vacuum tubes.

The primary culprit responsible for the noise generated by good quality silicon junction diodes is the turn-off characteristic. A reverse pulse is generated by the minority carriers crossing the junction after the majority carriers have galloped through. Tremendous strides have been made recently in reducing this effect in diodes designed for use in switched mode power supplies (SMPS). The processes used to create these fast turn-off devices avoid many of the noise and oscillation problems of older diodes.

However, reverse recovery pulses still exist. The energy distribution as a function of time varies with each device but the general trend is down at a rapid rate, as semiconductor designers seek to meet requirements for more efficient SMPS designs.

I have been doing empirical work with the simple-minded idea that the very fast fall time pulse excites the LC resonant circuit presented by the secondary winding of the transformer. The excitation of the LC circuit produces a damped wave burst of RF energy centered on the resonant frequency of the transformer. I have measured the burst frequency fundamental on different transformers at frequencies between 6 kHz and 165 kHz. Of course, the oscillation frequency (f0) is transformer and installation specific.

What all this means to the experimenter is that there are one or more transmitters buried in your amplifier. These transmitters produce 120 harmonically-rich pulses each second with a fundamental frequency (Q for each diode rectified supply. These pulses are radiated and conducted to other parts of the amplifier where they are detected and amplified along with the desired signal. Those beautiful wiring harnesses of old are real sonic killers for this reason. What you get is "diode grunge" that rides on the audio signal.

A more insidious problem is that these diode created bursts are also coupled back into the AC mains where they can affect unprotected low level stages elsewhere in the system.

...

Afterwards, I rationalized the cure, thinking that Schottky diodes have relatively few minority carriers, thus they provide little kick to the LC resonant circuit formed by the secondary winding. Since then, I have routinely replaced all of the pn diodes with Schottky diodes when I rebuild and recalibrate instruments for my shop.

I discovered the same pn burst problem during early work on the 211 amplifier. The attitude at the time was, "If I could see an artifact on the scope, it would be audible". In went the Schottkys on all low voltage and bias supplies. The high voltage supply for the 211 was another problem, however. A suitable bridge for the 1400 V power supply would require around a hundred 90V devices in the stackl Enter brute force techniques ...

...

The transformer-rectifier-filter interface must be short and sweet! I am wary of leads (antennas) over one inch long. My "new construction" supplies are fully shielded per a future article in SP. VHF RF construction techniques will make even the quietest amplifier quieter and sweeter! If you must bundle wires, use triaxial coax with proper grounding techniques. Think RF!
 
Bypassing the diode with a small value film cap also helps with this. The original bias diodes in my 1960 Sherwood were done that way.

An RC network is superior because the energy can be consumed as heat. Modern film capacitors have such low ESR that the energy is not consumed and can stimulate the transformer to ring in addition to creating carrier waves. Remember, if you bypass the diode at that frequency it no longer blocks the flow of energy.

I mentioned this in no. 29.
 
So, for the OP's benefit, what diode should he buy to replace the selenium rectifier, for the humble bias voltage of his ST70? And what additional resistance is needed?
 
the current is so low that I doubt you need extra series resistance. There should be adequate range in the stock adjustment circuit to make up for any changes in rectified output.

I run UF series diodes in most things.
 
I always appreciate any help, tips, etc from members. There's a lot I couldn't have accomplished in many things without forums... not only in terms of audio equipment, but vehicles, my job, etc. I'm pretty knowledgeable about many things, including audio equipment, but I do not have much experience at all in replacing old components with newer ones which are not really the same. I can easily replace the selenium rectifier with a similar one, but, for example, I don't really know what is meant to sub a UF4007 and bypassing it with a small value film capacitor.
This is my first time with tube equipment, and I tend to be more cautious than adventurous when it comes to possibly damaging components. I'm sure that on my next piece I'll be far better able to handle much of this, but I really need more details... things like a link to a component, or a specific part number, and steps like "connect the black wire to the negative terminal and the black and white cloth covered wire to the positive (or whatever)" at this point. I understand that so much handholding can be tedious to those more up on things, so thanks in advance to those who are willing to assist!

So, I'm looking at:
Two of these to replace the original caps on the driver board. For whatever reason, somebody replaced four others and left these two.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073HH9XN...colid=X6KL6NN4353O&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

This to replace the multi cap:
https://www.dynakitparts.com/shop/multi-section-capacitor-1/
I assume the wiring is the same as on the original, though I'll def. try to verify that.

And I'm still not really sure about the replacement for the selenium rectifier.
 
So, for the OP's benefit, what diode should he buy to replace the selenium rectifier, for the humble bias voltage of his ST70? And what additional resistance is needed?

For the diode, the Schottky Barrier Diode and Regular Schottky have the lowest Qrr. A snubber should still be used, but these are very low.

The bias voltage will be slightly higher because of (a) the substantial drop from the Se rectifier is eliminated, and (b) the shift from 115 VAC or 117 VAC (depending upon region of the country in 1960) to 120 VAC today. So the bias points will be off.

Here is one of many writeups on the substitution:

Further reading on Se rectifier voltage drop and replacement procedures:
w3hwj.com/index_files/RBSelenium2.pdf
Replacing Selenium Rectifiers by Rich Bonkowski (W3HWJ)
When you exchange a selenium rectifier for a silicon diode you will find that the DC output voltage to your equipment has increased by 5 to 15 volts. In order to maintain the originally specified output voltage, you will want to add a series resistor between the diode’s cathode and the first filter capacitor. Sometimes the increase in output voltage is not a particular problem, but a resistor should be added in all cases to reduce the available surge current.
Edit: Fixed formatting
 
Last edited:
This to replace the multi cap:
https://www.dynakitparts.com/shop/multi-section-capacitor-1/
I assume the wiring is the same as on the original, though I'll def. try to verify that.

One option is to restuff the can. Excellent guides abound on the interwebs. Here are two from AK, for example:
Another option is to move the filter capacitors underneath the chassis. Modern electrolytics are very small compared to those cans.

Whatever you do, do not increase the capacitance as this damages or destroys the rectifier.
 
I've taken a few days to learn more about this amp. I really had no familiarity with it or with tube equipment in general before buying this. At any rate, replacing caps and resistors, along with the rectifier, looks like something I can handle. I think I counted 15 or so resistors and caps on the underside of the amp that are original. They all look pretty easy to replace. The factory kit instructions and diagrams are helpful here in making sense of what does what, what component is connected where, etc. I'll also be ordering some 6GH8's and adapters to use in place of the 7199's and will likely get some EL34's for temp use while I'm working on this. I think that, at this point, I want to keep the amp fairly close to original. This will allow for easier troubleshooting in the future, etc. I don't mind changing a value here or there, if the change doesn't mean that test voltages will be different from stock, or if doing so requires other components to be changed (other than the selenium rectifier).

On that note, I'm looking to replace the multi cap. The values of the original are 30-20-20-20 mfd @ 525 vdc. I see there's a replacement available with 80/40/30/20 mfd @ 525 vdc. Which is recommended, and does the non-original one require any changes to other components? I notice that the choke underneath seems fairly nasty - waxy and sticky. Is this normal? It doesn't appear to be an expensive part. I'm not sure if this is something that I should replace or if it's fine to leave it alone.

Choke.JPG

Also, when I initially powered up the unit, I'd get an occasional burst of static for about 10 seconds. To reduce the volume of this noise - to prevent damage to the speakers until this is complete and to keep from making me jump - is there a problem with using an L-pad between the amp and speakers?

Thanks for any help and / or suggestions. I'm getting kind of excited about getting this thing tuned up and being able to use it vs my initial reluctance to start!
 
I've taken a few days to learn more about this amp. I really had no familiarity with it or with tube equipment in general before buying this. At any rate, replacing caps and resistors, along with the rectifier, looks like something I can handle. I think I counted 15 or so resistors and caps on the underside of the amp that are original. They all look pretty easy to replace. The factory kit instructions and diagrams are helpful here in making sense of what does what, what component is connected where, etc. I'll also be ordering some 6GH8's and adapters to use in place of the 7199's and will likely get some EL34's for temp use while I'm working on this. I think that, at this point, I want to keep the amp fairly close to original. This will allow for easier troubleshooting in the future, etc. I don't mind changing a value here or there, if the change doesn't mean that test voltages will be different from stock, or if doing so requires other components to be changed (other than the selenium rectifier).

On that note, I'm looking to replace the multi cap. The values of the original are 30-20-20-20 mfd @ 525 vdc. I see there's a replacement available with 80/40/30/20 mfd @ 525 vdc. Which is recommended, and does the non-original one require any changes to other components? I notice that the choke underneath seems fairly nasty - waxy and sticky. Is this normal? It doesn't appear to be an expensive part. I'm not sure if this is something that I should replace or if it's fine to leave it alone.

View attachment 1404486

Also, when I initially powered up the unit, I'd get an occasional burst of static for about 10 seconds. To reduce the volume of this noise - to prevent damage to the speakers until this is complete and to keep from making me jump - is there a problem with using an L-pad between the amp and speakers?

Thanks for any help and / or suggestions. I'm getting kind of excited about getting this thing tuned up and being able to use it vs my initial reluctance to start!
The ST-70 is a great place to start when it comes to working on tubes. A well thought out design, lots of parts and modifications available, and full clone kits if you want to start from the ground up. I started out truly building an amplifier from scratch, but I still learned a lot from working on a ST-70. BTW, you might want to try other similar triode/pentodes in place of the 6GH8, such as the 6U8 or 6EA8.

The 80/40/30/20µF can capacitor can be used, but you have to make sure that the first section used after the rectifier is 40µF or less. The 80µF section can be used further down the line in the power supply, but don't have it wired before the choke or you'll blow up the 5AR4.

Wax buildup under the choke means that it's been stressed in the past, possibly by a leaky can capacitor. It is technically OK to use, but may cause a bit of a smell when warmed up. One of my Mark IIIs had a bit of wax buildup under the choke, but it worked fine albeit emitting a smell when running. I replaced it with a C354 sub bought from Dynakit Parts. I may install the old C354 in my ST-35 at some point, but have yet to do so.

Using an L-pad between the amp and speakers isn't really a good idea. Tube amplifiers like to have a load at the speaker outputs at all times, and an L-pad can mess with that. After I built my first tube amp, I had no real concept of a power amplifier at the time, and tried using a mono L-pad from Rat Shack (meant for in-wall use) to control its volume levels. I first tried connecting it between the amp and speakers as designed, but soon realized that turning down the volume control resulted in me being able to hear music coming from inside the amp's output transformer. :eek: I moved the L-pad to go before the input, and it worked much better.
-Adam
 
They get slightly warm in use, and the wax runs out. Not uncommon. If it ohm checks OK, I wouldn't worry about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom