Fisher 800C High Bias

ivandezande

AK Subscriber
Subscriber
Just installed IBAM. Has the mods of screen resistor and cathode resistor.

Measuring across a 10 ohm cathode resistor the lowest I can get is 0.9 volts! Tubes are running much too hot.

Bias voltage is -25.8V.
 
Register to hide this ad
Looks like you removed the grid return resistors. Put them back in (220KΩ) as you are running 0.1uf coupling caps. They go between the 1KΩ resistors on pin 6 to the terminal strip.
 
Larry - Are you saying anyone who replaces the .047 coupling caps with .1's should put the grid returns back in which we removed because of IBAM? I still have .047 but was about to put in .1 Sonicaps. Thorne

EDIT: ivan - what is that purple-ish cap attached to pin 7 of V10? Never mind - it's a resistor and I have one too.
 
Last edited:
If you have the grid returns on the IBAM, (see below.)

Upon further study, ivan put the grid returns on the IBAM board, which IIRC Dave said it's a bad idea, but i can't remember exactly why. They should be @ the 1kΩ resistors. I think it had to do with circuit impedance, but I could be wrong. All I remember is Dave said it's not a good idea to put them on the IBAM/IBBA.

Thorne; There is a timing relationship that needs to be maintained in the circuit (R/C constant) a 0.047uf with a 330KΩ has a timing constant of approx 70ms (I'm doing this from memory). Changing the grid returns to 220K with a .1uf results in a change of the timing constant(I don't remember offhand what it was but it was definately off). The closest you can get with a 220K or 200K is with a .068uf for about 73ms IIRC.
 
Thanks, Larry. Now that's something I need to learn - timing constants. Time for research.

The pin 6 resistors are the 1K. I removed the 220's/330's because I'm pretty sure that was in the IBAM instructions. IIRC it is that they are no longer needed. IBAM has 200k on the IBAM board. What I don't understand is that since I don't have the 220's, haven't I already screwed up the timing constant? I'll start researching and maybe answer my own question. I'll post if so.
 
Last edited:
time constant math is real simple. resistor x capacitor = time constant. 330 x 0.047 = 15.51, 220 x 0.068 = 14.96. 220 x 0.1 = 22. I'm skipping the kilos and the micros and all that because for this it doesn't matter all that much. Either way, the 0.068 and a 220k is very close to the original. A 230k would be even closer, but thats an oddball value.


The IBAM needs the grid resistors. They can get physically moved, but they must be in the circuit otherwise you'll get no sound. The audio signal will just get grounded out through the bias supply.
 
If you have the grid returns on the IBAM, (see below.)

Upon further study, ivan put the grid returns on the IBAM board, which IIRC Dave said it's a bad idea, but i can't remember exactly why. They should be @ the 1kΩ resistors. I think it had to do with circuit impedance, but I could be wrong. All I remember is Dave said it's not a good idea to put them on the IBAM/IBBA.

I think the problem would be inductance and might cause parasitic oscillation.
 
Need a reality check. I've attached a pic of my IBAM circuitry (but not the board itself). I removed the 220k resistors because that's how I interpreted the diagram, but there are 200k resistors on the IBAM board. I believe I was told that the resistors were reduced to 200k to let the output tubes run a little cooler. Are the 200's good enough to preserve the appropriate time constant on a 500-C? .047 x 200 = 9.4.

Stock t=rc in a 500-C would be 330 x 0.047 = 15.51 (and hence 5T = 75ms that approximates what Larry mentions above. 5T is the time for the cap to charge fully.). Pre IBAM with 220k's, 220 x .047 = 10.34. If I were to replace the .047's with 0.1's, then t=rc would have to be 10.34 = 0.1 x R where R must be 103.4, so the resistors with .1 caps would have to be 103k instead of the 220k, correct?

EDIT: This begs the question... How far off can the time constant be and still produce good sound?
 

Attachments

  • my IBAM connections.jpg
    my IBAM connections.jpg
    193.2 KB · Views: 21
Last edited:
(post deleted - I later learned that the grid return resistors in the diagram, 200k, can be on the IBAM board or in the chassis, but see Dave's comment in post 26)
 

Attachments

  • IBAM_circuit 2.jpg
    IBAM_circuit 2.jpg
    75.5 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:
Drew's schematic does NOT show the 200k resistors on the IBAM board. All it shows is where they are connected in the circuit. And the value of that resistor depends on the value of the complementary coupling capacitor.

Back when Drew first published the schematic for the modification, the prevailing consensus was to change the stock .047uf capacitor to 0.1uf. Of necessity then, and in order to maintain the "constant," the combination of 200k and 0.1uf was established. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since Drew first published (2/20/2010) and some refinement has gone into the the issue of changing the coupling capacitors. Suffice it to say that 1) if you're going to install an adjustment modification, the original combination can remain. 2) If you are intent on changing the capacitor, then the most readily available capacitor is .068uf with the complementary 220k resistor. Of course, as originally advocated by many, Jim McShane being one, the use of a .1uf cap will maintain the "timing constant" as close to the original design as possible when used with a 200k grid resistor. That being said, I sincerely doubt anyone has ears sensitive enough to pick up the differences that would undoubtedly be shown on test equipment. Just sayin.'

Now none of this is directly related to the OP's original issue, i.e. a "hot" 7591 and, perhaps, a faulty IBAM construction. As Larry and gadget have already pointed out, the grid resistors need to be in circuit, whatever the chosen value of the complementary pair.
 
Last edited:
OK, I thought because it says "EXISTING COMPONENTS" at the top of the schematic on both sides, that everything inside those two statements meant the parts are to be on the IBAM board. Thorne

(EDIT deleted - I misunderstood)
 
Last edited:
The 1K has to be on the output tube grid for it to function correctly.

The 220k do not have to be, they just need to be in the circuit. Could probably make the case that its better for them to be at the output tube, but its far more critical that they exist vs where they exist.
 
The 1K has to be on the output tube grid for it to function correctly.

The 220k do not have to be, they just need to be in the circuit. Could probably make the case that its better for them to be at the output tube, but its far more critical that they exist vs where they exist.

Looks like he relocated them to his IBAM board per Larry's post #8 and OP's post #4. So problem may be IBAM construction or operator error. We'll see....
 
Thorne; I think what's messing with your mind is the 200KΩ resistors with regard to the diagram. They are existing, but are replacements. Because of placement issues (inductance, etc.) the 200KΩ should be placed in the original positions with a 3 lug "T" strip replacing the 2 lug. Separate the end that was tied together on the original setup. and connect the IBAM wires to the free end of the resistors.

So let's try this. Modified IBAM diagram to reflect the 200KΩ resistors (grid returns) in the existing components locations.

IBAM REVISED.jpg

I did some calc's using .068uf caps. and added the original value for comparison.
200KΩ x .068 = 13.60
220KΩ x .068 = 14.96
230KΩ x .068 = 15.64
330KΩ x .047 = 15.51

As 230KΩ is most likely a hard to get value the closest to the original value is 220KΩ and .068uf. BUT as Dave has said recently as long as you run the tubes (both original and russian replacements) @ 75% to 80%, you really don't need to change coupling cap and grid return values of .047uf and 330KΩ resistors.
 
Last edited:
EDIT: (removed misunderstanding of schematic) I guess it's OK that the grid resistors exist on the IBAM board as my Fisher sounds fine. VERY fine in fact ! Thorne
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom