• 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

The Mighty Bogen MO-200A

Gadget -- There are a number of things you could do, and that is certainly one of them, or gaseous regulator tubes as well. It can certainly be overcome.

Mech -- It's funny you mention those thoughts. I too have often thought about the heyday of vacuum tube audio, of Hafler and Laurent, and what they had to work with, and frankly, just how good the stuff was that they produced. They really were giants in this industry -- if only in generating circuits that so many roundly condemn!!

Dave
 
ooh, gas regulator tube, theres an idea. Those look far cooler than zener diodes do, and who doesn't like a bit of visual bling? Its not like the Bogens are lookers or anything.
 
Or just a straight tube-based series pass regulator.

A gas shunt regulator would look cooler though.
 
Love this thread. I wonder if it might reflect the hand drawn paper / napkins, phone/snail mail discussions had by David Hafler and his tube engineers during their time developing the Mk II/III/IV/VI, and deciding what choices they had to work with.

Could you imagine the discussions they had? Of course back then, the issue of quality of tubes was not a problem, but reliability, ease of construction, and the price point which their products had to sell at obviously played a role. And I think the one point that they had is they were developing their output transformers and deciding what to do with them. We don't have that luxury here with the already defined Bogen output. So a lot of choices are woven around what is already existent and working with that.

Bob Carver relayed a few discussions with some of the giants of the past in his stories.
 
The "dreaded shuffle" -- I love it! Frannie, you have a way with words!

If there's enough interest and rpampt is willing to allow the project to get sidetracked, then now would be an opportune time to look at developing a 6550 conversion for the Bogen as well:



Dave

I typically cannot share a whole lot of expertise nor experience with others here at AK. But on other hand, I often get the opportunity to learn from the others who share a great amount of wisdom.
So who am I to keep this project from getting sidetracked for the benefit of folks here. It may be to my benefit as well. :D Have at it Dave in whatever manner you see fit, if people have interest. Everything is reversable, right?:yes:
 
The only thing irreversible so far is that one terminal broke off of the auxiliary AC power outlet on the rear panel of the chassis, making it inoperable. In some defense though, it was clearly ready to break off when I got to it. A slight tub on the wire I was removing and off it broke!

Dave
 
Hiya,

Have at it Dave in whatever manner you see fit, if people have interest. Everything is reversable, right?

I don't think you want Dave "Reversing" 99.9% of the mods/fixes done :)

That power supply was scary.

Thanks Guys for advancing science. :)

Frannie
 
Hiya,



I don't think you want Dave "Reversing" 99.9% of the mods/fixes done :)

That power supply was scary.

Thanks Guys for advancing science. :)

Frannie

Haha, I'm with you on that. That was just my weak attempt at humor. Very weak.:D
 
Thanks Guys for advancing science. :)

Frannie


Mad_Science_by_JediMSieer.png
 
Alternate Design

Some additional tests were run to determine just how significant an improvement could be had by converting the output stage to 6550 operation. As discussed earlier, this requires a change in the driver circuitry for maximum performance to be achieved.

For this test, I broke out a pair a brand new Sylvania 6550 tubes, which are quite distinguishable by their somewhat unique shape for these tube types. Also as before, I upped the juice to the existing driver circuit to supply the additional drive -- a move that along with removing the NFB connection, allowed for the tests to be made, but would not be practical for any real world design.

These tubes produced the expected bump in power output -- easily producing a sustained 120.0 watts RMS with zero signs of output tube distress -- but also delivered one other hoped for result as well.

Early comments on the performance of the original Bogen design included the observation of the quite poor screen voltage regulation, and the significant contribution to the distortion this causes in pentode amplifiers. However, the installation of EFB can easily gain control over the havoc this creates. When installed, the low distortion operating point will be maintained regardless of screen voltage regulation, with simulated EFB testing indicating a 1 kHz THD of about .22% at 100 watts RMS from the modified design. This level of performance represents a significant improvement from where the original performance started (1.65% at 200 watts, both channels still in parallel operation), representing nearly an 8 fold drop in distortion, and all with no increase in NFB to achieve it. Complementing this, the improved frequency response of the modified design (to 50 kHz +0/-1db), corrected input stage overload issue, the ability to properly bias and balance the output stage, and the revised OPT load connections all make for a very much improved Bogen, as re-purposed for home stereo sound reproduction use -- and all with using only two output tubes per channel, yet still maintaining the same level of total power output. For those wishing then to optimize the stock performance of their 8417 based MO-100/200 amplifiers, this would be a very good way to go.

But conversion to 6550 operation may be appealing to others. While this tube has significant drive issues as compared to the 8417, it is also a more efficient tube with respect to the production of power: Under conditions of maximum current flow -- as compared to its 8417 or EL34 brethren -- the 6550 is simply able to channel more of its total current flow to the plate, with less current lost through the screen circuit. This not only maximizes power output, but also significantly improves screen voltage regulation from practical screen grid power sources -- so much so in the Bogen, that EFB may not be required with 6550s to match the distortion performance produced by 8417 tubes under EFB control. Further testing will tell that tale. Finally of course, less power consumed by the screen circuit means less screen dissipation as well. So potentially then, 6550 tubes are (will):

1. Cheaper, more available, and in current production.

2. Capable of producing the most power output. How current production 6550 tubes stack up against good NOS 8417 tubes is unknown. This could be a factor in tube choice as well.

3. Capable of producing the lowest distortion -- or -- may not require EFB to achieve that produced by 8417s, or at least a very acceptably low distortion.

4. Require a new driver circuit to properly implement their installation.

With this last thought, some attention was then turned to developing a revised driver circuit, keeping it as simple as possible in keeping with the original topology, yet having it fully capable of providing a low distortion drive signal, capable of properly driving push-pull 6550 tubes to full power output in the Bogen environment.

Tests had previously shown that an 85 volt peak-to-peak signal would be required (42.5 volts peak per tube), and this to be developed across a 47K output tube grid return resistor -- this to keep this value in line with the 50K maximum Grid #1 DC resistance allowed for 6550 tubes when operated in fixed bias operation.

Further testing showed that the triode section of a 6AN8 tube, when properly biased, could develop as much as 100 volts peak to peak (50 volts peak per tube) with low distortion, across the required grid return resistor value for 6550 tubes. This required a B+ voltage of 400 vdc to the inverter stage, setting the minimum allowable B+ to this stage under full power output conditions.

With R/C coupling used between the pentode and triode sections of this tube, it avoids the pitfalls normally associated with this kind of gain stage/inverter configuration, by not allowing the plate voltage of the pentode section to have any effect on the operation of the inverter stage. Normally, slight variations in the mechanical construction of the pentode tube section can cause wild variations in screen voltages produced with typical circuits, which in turn affects the pentode's plate voltage, which in turn affects the inverter stage if direct coupling is used. By using R/C coupling, these concerns are avoided, and performance then becomes quite consistent from tube to tube.

The pentode gain stage section can be configured to provide a gain of over 300, which would produce a working input sensitivity requirement of under 1 volt (estimated at about .65 volt) after the application of the original 17 db of NFB. Or, it can be configured for a gain of something over 100, which would return a similar input sensitivity as that of the original Bogen design (estimated at about 1.85 vac) once feedback is applied. Comments appreciated on which sensitivity is more desirable.

In any event, this work has allowed building blocks to form, allowing for an alternate design using 6550 tubes and a 6AN8 tube for the driver position. These tubes are more readily available, with this design also providing significant improvement over that of the original Bogen offering, when using this unit for home stereo use.

A few quick pics:

1. These bad boys developed the most power output of all in the Bogen chassis, reliably producing a sustained 120 watts RMS at 1 kHz before the onset of clipping. Of course, this power will fall somewhat when both channels are driven, but power will still ably exceed the original 100 watt specification.

2. Using more traditional circuit development methods (i.e. a mess), the new driver circuit is undergoing testing and measurement.

3. With each division calibrated for 20 volts peak, here is a very clean 50 volt peak 20 Hz sine wave presented from each side of the inverter, after a coupling cap into a 47K following stage load. This is significant, as the low frequency/low distortion output capability of many such driver circuits AFTER the coupling cap can actually fall below the needs of the output stage to reliably produce full power output. This driver circuit is capable of driving 6550 tubes, and therefore any other typical output tube, to full power capability across the full audio spectrum with low distortion, in most typical pentode output stage designs.

All that would be left then would be to develop an appropriate B+ tap for the new driver stage to operate from, and of course the NFB network and stability circuits once the driver is installed. As always, all comments welcomed!

Dave
 

Attachments

  • Bogen 6550 Driver Development 002.jpg
    Bogen 6550 Driver Development 002.jpg
    77.8 KB · Views: 54
  • Bogen 6550 Driver Development 003.jpg
    Bogen 6550 Driver Development 003.jpg
    96.2 KB · Views: 58
  • Bogen 6550 Driver Development 001.jpg
    Bogen 6550 Driver Development 001.jpg
    48.6 KB · Views: 44
Do you have any testing or past experience to see how a 6AN8 compares to other pentode/triode designs used for this sort of thing? The only other ones I've personally had were 6GH8 and 6U8 tubes. I have never tried comparing them though.

I'm really interested in seeing how these work out with 6550's. Interesting that they actually perform better than the 8417 does once you get them enough drive. I assume something will also have to be done to keep B+ on the voltage amp / inverter within reasonable limits on startup? How does the stock design manage that, or does it just hope for the best?
 
Gadget -- The original design powered the original driver circuitry from the lower portion of the doubler circuit (i.e, the screen supply circuit) -- this because the silly thing doesn't need to develop hardly any drive to excite 8417 tubes. At turn on, the maximum voltage developed at the doubler mid point then is about 380 vdc.

The maximum plate voltage for either section of the 6AN8 is 330 volts, based on the Design Maximum rating system -- but this is based on a a tube that is operating and conducting current, not one with a cold cathode.

I'll have to research the subject more, but I'm thinking that a safe cold cathode voltage would likely be on the order of 150% or more of the Design Maximum rating. I'm looking into that issue next, and for now, am hopeful that a simple voltage divider across the top doubler section that will allow a tap for the new driver circuit will suffice.

Of all the appropriate pentode/triodes I am aware of, the 6AN8 has the greatest performance capability, and a triode section with the highest rated plate dissipation, versus the rest of the other capable tubes. It also has the highest rated cathode current for the triode section (along with some of the other tubes as well). That's not to say that a 6U8 or others in its class couldn't do the job, and in fact, almost certainly could. I just opted for the beefiest tube of the bunch. The only thing that would really require any difference between using the various tubes (beside pin out differences) would be the screen and cathode resistors for the pentode section, the cathode resistor for the triode section, and potential changes to the feedback/stability circuits.

Dave
 
Ah, so it was "un-doubled". That makes sense. Well, voltage regulation or even just a more crude limiting circuit wouldn't be that hard to do like was discussed earlier. A nice voltage reg tube, or zener diodes, or something could be rigged up easy enough to keep the tube from blowing up. I do like gas regulators though, they're so cool looking.


I hadn't looked up the other tube's capabilities. Makes sense to go with the beefy one where it might matter. I have no personal preference, other than I already own some 6U8's and a couple of 6GH8. 6AN8s are cheap enough though, so its not like it would break the bank to get a few.
 
I was also going to suggest the 6U8/6GH8 family of tubes(and the rest in that pinout)
Nothing wrong with the 6AN8, except it is the only tube in it's pinout, like the 7199 is.

Just me when I'm "building" hate to get stuck to only one possible tube to use as I do
like to tube roll a fair amount as well, and be able to use various brands than allows to
what your able to get in just one tube choice.. (an there are a lot of 9AE pinout tubes)

Out of all the 6EA8/6U8/6GH8 an the 6AN8, yah the 6AN8 is an hair beefier at 2.8w on
triode with same maximum plate voltage, with those others at 2.5w, there pretty close.

Anywho just thinking out loud.. :scratch2:
 
As to one of your other "questions" Dave.. :)

If I'm able to pick a sensitivity with a design, I prefer to be in that 1.5v area
so as a passive pre still works and an active pre still has some room to move.
 
Thanks Keg -- I am happy to pursue the driver design with the 6U8 family of tubes, although my experience is that I have had some of these tubes fail when pushed to higher dissipation levels, or develop significant heater/cathode leakage. On the other hand, I have never seen a 6AN8 fail in any other manner than to simply wear out. Others may have different experiences.

As for the gain issue, one of the benefits of using a pentode input stage, is that you can use a simple potentiometer of upwards to 250K on the input grid, with little if any detriment to HF response at mid-position settings. With a triode input stage, this of course is just not possible unless NFB is used to compensate for Miller.

With the ability to employ a simple gain control then, virtually any gain setting can be had from maximum sensitivity to no sensitivity, with no significant impact on performance.

Again, comments welcomed.

Dave
 
Well the input pot sounds good here..
(the purists will complain, NO not another passive part) ;)

As to the 6GH8 family of tubes I haven't seen any more failure there then others,
EXCEPT when going through Used tubes and the "usual construction" 6GH8 types.
Used ones just don't seem to Last or even a higher percentage test not great on
the oodles of them you find laying in every box of tubes that comes your way..

I do come across so many of 6GH8/6U8 in boxes though cause there everywhere.
(there are gazillions of these tubes out there, in everyone's stash an what not)

Now my favorite in this family is the 6BL8, and they have a different construction
that you can immediately see compared to an run of the mill 6GH8/6U8, But if you
get a good Mullard or Amperex 6GH8 you'll notice they have this same internals to
look just like an classic 6BL8 does, an those tend to perform nice even used ones.

Most of the 6BL8 are of European manufacturing, so a counterpart in the 6GH8 I'd
guess is to be expected that they are made different than the US examples would.
(so yah to surmise the European 6GH8 with the alternate construction are great) :)
.
 
Last edited:
6GH8's I believe were used in a lot of TV sets. Not quite sure what function they served, but thats probably why everyone has a pile. I have an old CB that runs a bunch of them.
 
Hiya,

As to driver tubes .. what about those lonely "Free" Octal sockets ??

Frannie
 
Back
Top Bottom