DO NOT ever do this to your Dynaco MK III amps!

GordonW

Speakerfixer
Subscriber
Got in a pair of Dynaco Mk III amps for a refresh. Obviously, they had not been used for a while (one was missing output tubes)...

From first glance, someone had obviously been meddling... er, modifying these amps in the past. Whenever you see a jumper and/or open solder pins (components removed) on a Mk III board, you know something is NOT stock.

The other thing- and this was a surprise- was that this was the first Mk III set I've personally encountered, where an output transformer was actually BAD- one plate lead read about double the impedance of the other ones (in this amp, and both of them in the other amp- those all basically matched, with this one lead being way out of spec).

As I got further into them, I discovered just how much had been changed- and how ill-advised (and dangerous) these mods could be. Here's a schematic that I reverse-engineered from it, and below that, the actual CORRECT factory schematic:

dynaco-mkiii_mod_do_not_use!.jpg
dynaco_mk_iii_factory_schematic.jpg


Coupling caps of FOUR TIMES the value of the original- which pretty much tanks the LF stability...

The feedback cap on the screen lead completely REMOVED (no 390pf, or any other value, cap where it was supposed to be), so that most of the phase and amplitude compensation that made the high frequency response stable, wasn't even there any more. Apparently, someone had increased the size of the compensation cap on the plate of the plate of the 6AN8 pentode to try and get back some semblance of stability... but there really is no way, that that one cap can do both its original job, AND what the 390pf cap was supposed to do.

BTW- my speculation, is that the instability that was likely happening here, due to the above changes, was probably the direct cause of the bad/damaged output transformer... motorboating and or HF oscillation can wreak havoc on a transformer, sometimes...

Speaking of caps- the 1uf output coupling caps? 400v. That's a problem. The phase inverter typically operates at about 365v on the plate- and possibly more, if the wall line voltage is above 120v at all- and there's about -50v of BIAS on the other side of the output coupling cap that's connected to the plate. So, that cap is IDLING at about 415V DC across it!! Not good, for a 400v-rated cap...

Last, but not least- the two most bizarre mods, were resistor substitutions. The 470K grid bias reference/input load resistor on the input was replaced by a 4700 ohm! This meant that the input impedance of the amp was only 4.7K- making the amp pretty much useless on anything but a low-output-impedance solid state preamp- no tube preamp need apply, pretty much, And, to top everything off- the 680 ohm cathode bias resistor on the 6AN8 pentode (which provides the majority of the bias for that tube), was simply REMOVED. I mean, a JUMPER soldered in place of it! The net effect of that, is that the 6AN8 pentode was drawing inordinately too much current- dropping the plate voltage of that section- which, since it's direct coupled to the grid of the phase inverter- almost completely biasing the phase inverter at cutoff. So much for any voltage headroom in those stages!

Needless to say, I didn't even think about attempting to run the amp like that. Installed a Triode Electronics A431S to replace the bad output transformer, and back to stock it goes!

I did, for the sake of capacitor safety, install one slight mod after returning everything else to stock- a 330K 2W bleeder resistor, across the phase inverter supply. This both acted as a bleeder to drain the caps at shutdown (a good thing if the amp is to be left with the top cover off at any time), and to slightly reduce the startup and working voltage on the inverter power supply cap (with modern line voltage of over 120V AC from the wall, it could go a bit over rated cap voltage at startup). A good thing in terms of cap life...

Regards,
Gordon.
 
A solid tube linestage can drive that 4k7 input grid resistor. As far as 'off the rack' ones go, probably not...LOL Taking that down to 47k or 100k is not the worst idea I have ever seen as long as the linestage is not running 12AX7's.

The OPT probably dropped one of the two sections of primary coil; their interleave/construction is pretty simple( but effective).
cheers,
Douglas
 
wonder where that modification originated. There have been so many over the years for Dynaco gear. its the blessing and the curse of so many having existed to begin with. unfortunately not all modifications are based in solid engineering.
 
wonder where that modification originated. There have been so many over the years for Dynaco gear. its the blessing and the curse of so many having existed to begin with. unfortunately not all modifications are based in solid engineering.
:)
 
That is a true horror story. Makes you wonder where the DIY'er got there ideas from, since they were doing specific things which kinda make sense in a totally off track way.
 
Was that DC resistance you measured on that OPT? That can vary a bit. It's a small amount of the total impedance. It may not be bad. You might inquire over at dynakitparts or dynaco basket. I've had good MK3 xmer's which were all over the place resistance wise, but nicely matched impedance wise.
 
When I was in high school years ago I had a capacitor blow up under my hand..........Scared the daylights out of me. It was a good lesson in observing voltage ratings!
 
Was that DC resistance you measured on that OPT? That can vary a bit. It's a small amount of the total impedance. It may not be bad. You might inquire over at dynakitparts or dynaco basket. I've had good MK3 xmer's which were all over the place resistance wise, but nicely matched impedance wise.

It read DOUBLE what the one on the other channel read (a difference of 65 ohms, vs 125 ohms). The screens measured the same- just the plate lead on the one was drastically different from the other (and from the replacement transformer- the replacement read very close, on all leads, to the one good original transformer).

Given what else was going on in the amp, I wasn't ready to take any chances on it. At least not until it can be put through a megger and such, to make sure it's not going to arc inside or something...

Regards,
Gordon.
 
Good News. You have a 4300 ohm transformer with a variance of 60 ohms. Verify with the sources mentioned above, but you are ok.
 
I'm thinking he's measuring DC resistance, and that sort of variation is fairly significant across one relatively small portion of the primary. DCR isn't the whole story when talking transformers but its usually a pretty good clue about potential issues.
 
I'm thinking he's measuring DC resistance, and that sort of variation is fairly significant across one relatively small portion of the primary. DCR isn't the whole story when talking transformers but its usually a pretty good clue about potential issues.

Yep- the good transformer read about 27 ohms DC or so between CT and screen, and about 38 ohms or so between screen and plate, on both sides (both tubes).

The bad one also read 27-point-something ohms between CT and screen- but NINETY SEVEN or so ohms between screen and plate- JUST on ONE SIDE (the other plate lead read about 38 ohms between itself and its screen tap).

That's over two and a half times the DC resistance of the other ones... JUST on that ONE tap.

That's not a healthy transformer...

Regards,
Gordon.
 
wonder where that modification originated. There have been so many over the years for Dynaco gear. its the blessing and the curse of so many having existed to begin with. unfortunately not all modifications are based in solid engineering.

My guess, is that this mod came about in the "POOGE" ("Progressive Optimization of Generic Equipment") craze in the 1980s and early 1990s- given the age of the caps in it, it likely was done in that timeframe. People were falling over themselves to "improve" anything and everything, by any means possible, no matter how outlandish. This sort of fits into the DIY re-design ethos of the era- massive feedback, ostensibly to reduce distortion to levels rivaling SS amps (just the open-loop gain increase on the first stage, due to deleting the 680 ohm resistor, probably increased the effective feedback by at least a factor of two), bandwidth at the cost of anything else (hence, getting rid of HF shelving caps- which would have had the purpose of rolling off the response before things got hairy in terms of oscillation), and most importantly- just doing it, simply because you could (damn the torpedoes... :D ).

Unfortunately, almost nobody doing these mods had the actual test equipment needed to do comprehensive measurements of the results- or if they did, they "blindered" themselves to such a small subset of performance factors, overlooking others- that oftentimes, glaring side-effects were simply ignored or not even detected at all...

This is one thing which the Internet (and powerful computers in general) has helped, IMHO, immensely. We now have communities to bounce crazy ideas off of- and people within those communities with access to real test gear, an inclination to use it, and modeling tools to analyze the math to make sure it makes sense, too. So, many of the truly out-of-control things are caught, reported, and alternatives given, before people blow stuff up unnecessarily, now!

Regards,
Gordon.
 
Back
Top Bottom