• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Pioneer SX-980 Protection Relay Kicking Out

its not easy here so i have to choose my time for repairs .. reminds me i still need 4 x 12v batteries for the ups inverter .. about 3kw i think ..at least 2kw .. saves constant setting of the variac when setting idle bias .
on a similar note some units are finicky about certain things with the covers off .. strip lights for example .
There's another Audiokarma thread about a guy who had cycling protection relay issues with an SX-980 after relocating to a new dwelling. Not sure how that turned out - I believe the thread ended with him taking the receiver to a repair shop.
 
clean power supply is the easier option as far as i know . might be a work around but not something i can do ,, be interesting to learn about it if possible .. facts right first though . i did suspect mains supply a while back
 
Don't feel dumb, everybody has different experiences, which bias their point of view. AK members share their different skill sets to help each other!
:beerchug:
Another interesting thing I've discovered this morning. I started wondering if there could be a small mod made to the protection board to accommodate slightly-weird line voltages like I seem to have here. What got me to thinking about this was that, many times when the relay would stay engaged on its own using normal line voltage, the relay would let go as soon as I put my DMM probe on pin 7 of the PA3004 to measure the AC voltage there.

On my Frankenstein protection board in the original receiver, I pulled R12 and started increasing resistance in its place. I went from the original 10K up to 50K, then finally left it open. During this whole process, the relay would generally engage, but would let go as soon as the DMM probe was put on pin 7 of the PA3004 to check for proper voltage. Next, I pulled R11 and started decreasing resistance while checking the AC voltage to the PA3004. I ended up just jumpering the resistor out completely. At that point, I finally got the relay to engage and stay that way, even when I probed pin 7 of the PA3004. To sum it up, I have R12 removed and R11 jumpered. The voltage on pin 7 of the PA3004 has never really changed much from .65vac during all of this - it might have varied a few hundredths of a volt, but no more than that. Strange that I didn't see more of a voltage deviation, but it looks like R8 has the biggest voltage drop across it, and I didn't make any changes there.

Not sure if I'll end up using this mod - I guess as long as I have the proper AC voltage to the PA3004, things should be okay. I don't see these changes making any difference in the operation of the remainder of the protection circuitry.
 
On my Frankenstein protection board in the original receiver, I pulled R12 and started increasing resistance in its place. I went from the original 10K up to 50K, then finally left it open. During this whole process, the relay would generally engage, but would let go as soon as the DMM probe was put on pin 7 of the PA3004 to check for proper voltage. Next, I pulled R11 and started decreasing resistance while checking the AC voltage to the PA3004. I ended up just jumpering the resistor out completely. At that point, I finally got the relay to engage and stay that way, even when I probed pin 7 of the PA3004. To sum it up, I have R12 removed and R11 jumpered. The voltage on pin 7 of the PA3004 has never really changed much from .65vac during all of this - it might have varied a few hundredths of a volt, but no more than that. Strange that I didn't see more of a voltage deviation, but it looks like R8 has the biggest voltage drop across it, and I didn't make any changes there.

R8 (470k) controls the current through PA3004 pin7 and is much larger than the voltage divider created by R11 and R12. I think R11 and R12 are intended to cause the (floating) AC signal from the transformer to have a chassis ground reference on the protection board. It looks to me, from your scope pictures, that pin7 internally is a transistor base-emitter junction (0.65v) with a reverse diode junction (-0.65v) protecting it from reverse bias. Just a guess? (see schematic) But if I am correct the voltage at pin7 will not increase significantly until a much larger (possibly damaging) current passes through pin7. Put R11 and R12 back in your Frankenstein board and try changing R8 to 330k or 220k. That may increase the current through pin7 without damage to IC or greatly affecting the voltage divider.

.pin7input.jpg
 
R8 (470k) controls the current through PA3004 pin7 and is much larger than the voltage divider created by R11 and R12. I think R11 and R12 are intended to cause the (floating) AC signal from the transformer to have a chassis ground reference on the protection board. It looks to me, from your scope pictures, that pin7 internally is a transistor base-emitter junction (0.65v) with a reverse diode junction (-0.65v) protecting it from reverse bias. Just a guess? (see schematic) But if I am correct the voltage at pin7 will not increase significantly until a much larger (possibly damaging) current passes through pin7. Put R11 and R12 back in your Frankenstein board and try changing R8 to 330k or 220k. That may increase the current through pin7 without damage to IC or greatly affecting the voltage divider.

.View attachment 1289865
Okay, I'll give that a try. It would be easier to piggy-back another resistor on top of R8 to achieve a lesser resistance value. Now that we're talking about that, I'm thinking I may have already tried piggy-backing R8 - possibly with another 470K-ohm resistor. I think I saw a voltage increase on pin 7 of the PA3004, but the relay kept cycling. Not sure if I posted that or not. Anyway, I'll give it a try.
 
Last edited:
i would be testing the mains supply with one of these .
MARCP.jpg
 
R8 (470k) controls the current through PA3004 pin7 and is much larger than the voltage divider created by R11 and R12. I think R11 and R12 are intended to cause the (floating) AC signal from the transformer to have a chassis ground reference on the protection board. It looks to me, from your scope pictures, that pin7 internally is a transistor base-emitter junction (0.65v) with a reverse diode junction (-0.65v) protecting it from reverse bias. Just a guess? (see schematic) But if I am correct the voltage at pin7 will not increase significantly until a much larger (possibly damaging) current passes through pin7. Put R11 and R12 back in your Frankenstein board and try changing R8 to 330k or 220k. That may increase the current through pin7 without damage to IC or greatly affecting the voltage divider.

.View attachment 1289865
I reconnected R11 and R12. Then I piggy-backed R8 with another 470K-ohm resistor, then worked my way down to a 270K-ohm resistor, which got me at 0.76vac on pin 7 of the PA3004. I didn't want to increase the voltage any more than that. Relay still cycling, but did latch for a few seconds from time-to-time. Again, putting my DMM probe on pin 7 of the PA3004 always caused the relay to let go.
 
i would be testing the mains supply with one of these .
MARCP.jpg
Probably not a bad idea. I found an older meter-based socket tester. Everything checks out fine. But, since the receiver doesn't use a ground lug on the power cord, I'm not sure how much good this would do me?
 
Last edited:
Petehall347 mentioned using a socket checker. That got me to thinking about grounding the receiver to the incoming power ground. I know I'd have to make sure my 120vac hot was connected to the red wire on the convenience outlets in the back of the receiver, and the neutral connected other side (with the white wire leading to the transformer). My assumption is that this would work just fine, since I'm literally providing a ground path (although not a good one) every time I touch the frame of the receiver. Just wondering if this work without causing problems?
 
Last edited:
it would show a neutral fault . one thing you could do is measure neutral to ground voltage ..it should be close to zero volts .
 
it would show a neutral fault . one thing you could do is measure neutral to ground voltage ..it should be close to zero volts .
I show no voltage whatsoever between neutral and ground. I'm in a brand-new science building on a large college campus, so the electrical work was recently installed and inspected. But still, it's like there's something funky with the power..... although I can't see what.
 
I show no voltage whatsoever between neutral and ground. I'm in a brand-new science building on a large college campus, so the electrical work was recently installed and inspected. But still, it's like there's something funky with the power..... although I can't see what.
You should't read any voltage between neutral and ground, If you did you would have a problem.
 
There's another Audiokarma thread about a guy who had cycling protection relay issues with an SX-980 after relocating to a new dwelling. Not sure how that turned out - I believe the thread ended with him taking the receiver to a repair shop.
In that thread the poster had moved to a new apartment building that had arc-fault detecting circuit breakers as mandated by recent building codes. His receiver worked fine until he moved in there, if I recall correctly.

I show no voltage whatsoever between neutral and ground. I'm in a brand-new science building on a large college campus, so the electrical work was recently installed and inspected. But still, it's like there's something funky with the power..... although I can't see what.

Check with your building Maintenance Dept to see if your NEW building has Arc-Fault detecting circuit breakers in their distribution panels. That may be your issue.

I looked for that post, but could not find it :(.
 
Something else I'd like to point out before I forget: Removing the .75vac from pin 7 of the PA3004 doesn't keep the relay engaged - it c
Thanks for the link! I read through most of the posts. That guy had the same symptoms with his 1280 as I've had with two 980s. Odd that his receiver still had the relay cycling problem even after taking it back to the location where it worked before. That's on my list - I'm working on getting the second SX-980 cleaned up and upgraded to LED lamps. Once that's done, I'll take it home and see if the relay cycling goes away (hope so).
 
In that thread the poster had moved to a new apartment building that had arc-fault detecting circuit breakers as mandated by recent building codes. His receiver worked fine until he moved in there, if I recall correctly.



Check with your building Maintenance Dept to see if your NEW building has Arc-Fault detecting circuit breakers in their distribution panels. That may be your issue.

I looked for that post, but could not find it :(.
Will do. It'll be interesting how this turns out. I have a friend that worked for the electrical contractor who did the work here - I'll get in touch with him, as well.
 
between live and ground it should show full voltage . same volts as neutral to live .
Yes, it does. The whole ground plug thing seems a little silly, considering the ground wire and the neutral wire are both tied to the same buss bar in the breaker panel.
 
Just a refresher: When I originally suspected the AC power, I subbed in a 20vac wall wart for the 21vac supply from the receiver. The wall wart was plugged into the same outlet as the receiver, but the relay cycling never happened while using it - the relay engaged normally. So, when considering that my incoming power might be coming through an AFCI, why would using a different transformer make any difference when plugged into the same source as the receiver's transformer? Things that make you go hmmmm.....
 
Back
Top Bottom