• WARNING: Tube/Valve amplifiers use potentially LETHAL HIGH VOLTAGES.
    Building, troubleshooting and testing of these amplifiers should only be
    performed by someone who is thoroughly familiar with
    the safety precautions around high voltages.

Bewitch KT88

I found the following comment on another site's thread about the BEWITCH 6550 amp. In this instance, this particular (blown) BEWITCH amp had been running KT88 tubes; and a failed tube had caused a melt-down.

In the interests of safety, I am very keen for experienced others to comment on the truth of the following conclusion, drawn from another engineer, who evaluated this same BEWITCH circuit...

"Whilst it's okay for 6V6, EL84 and EL34 tubes to use a common cathode bias resistor, this should never be done with KT66 or KT88 type tubes. (Yes, it is a design fault)

The circuit needs to be modified so each output tube has it's own resistor and bypass capacitor. 560 ohm 10 watt to 25 watt with 100uf to 220uf 100V bypass cap for each will do."



I've just gotta figure out exactly how to do this...

Can anyone help?
 
Last edited:
should be easy........what is the cathode currents of your tube? what is the negative grid voltage? knowing these two, you can Ohm your way to a suitable resistor, get the nearest standard value....

always remember, whatever voltage is dropped at your cathode bias resistor, then that is the negative grid bias...

take note too, that if you poke your voltmeter to your grid, you get a 0 volt reading, and that is because a positive voltage is developed at the cathodes by the cathode resistor.....

this is as easy as it gets...
 
Page 2 of this datasheet states "it is essential to use separate cathode resistors"

http://frank.yueksel.org/sheets/084/k/KT88_GEC.pdf

Like Tony, I always use separate resistors. Even if you use high quality parts, the extra two resistors and two caps don't cost more than 20$. I used these in my KT88 amp as bypass caps for 10W Dale WW resistors.

PEG124PL347VQL1 KEMET | Mouser Canada

The 22,000 hour rating at 105c makes sense if they are mounted beside hot parts in a hot chassis.
 
Last edited:
this is as easy as it gets...

Thanks TonyTecson. I think this is an education and perspective thing.

I'm sure this is as easy as it gets... - for a seasoned amp engineer, who may have seen and resolved this type of challenge a thousand times.

For a self-taught newbie like myself, without any formal electrical training; without a dad who was a TV technician; and without a bloke up the road who shared his knowledge - it's really not so simple to understand.

I have learned to assemble tube amp kit-sets, learned how to use a multimeter and ERS tester, taught myself how to test and replace faulty components; and can follow a schematic to the letter.

So, I am here in DIYAudio to try and learn more - and do it myself. I appreciate that you are trying to help me, but the fact is, that I am not yet at an expertise level, that I can make full use of your data.

Baby steps for me... :D
 
Page 2 of this datasheet states "it is essential to use separate cathode resistors"

http://frank.yueksel.org/sheets/084/k/KT88_GEC.pdf

Like Tony, I always use separate resistors. Even if you use high quality parts, the extra two resistors and two caps don't cost more than 20$. I used these in my KT88 amp as bypass caps for 10W Dale WW resistors.

PEG124PL347VQL1 KEMET | Mouser Canada

The 22,000 hour rating at 105c makes sense if they are mounted beside hot parts in a hot chassis.


Thanks for this kodabmx.

As below, getting the parts for this circuit change - or affording them - is a non-issue.

Figuring-out the right values and understanding exactly where to put them, are the issues for me.

Also, once the new components are in place, I need to understand what other changes I would need to make to the circuit, to de-activate any "auto-biasing" that is currently in play.

Questions, questions, questions...
 
Thanks for this kodabmx.

As below, getting the parts for this circuit change - or affording them - is a non-issue.

Figuring-out the right values and understanding exactly where to put them, are the issues for me.

Also, once the new components are in place, I need to understand what other changes I would need to make to the circuit, to de-activate any "auto-biasing" that is currently in play.

Questions, questions, questions...

It's labelled R13 and it's in parallel with C5. This is the "shared" cathode resistor.

Ohm's law says we need to double the resistance to get the same voltage drop with half the current, so make R13 250R into two 500R resistors, each with their own cap, one set for each output tube. In a stereo push pull amp, that's 4 sets.
 
i learned a lot from reading posts by PRR, SY, smoking-amp, nanana and lot of others here, their posts are always a joy to read....

Totally agree. Also DF96 and AndrewT may they rest in peace. Great minds on this board.

Come to mention it, your posts are interesting too, Tony. You actually inspire me to learn how to wind a transformer. Just no idea how to do it for audio. I could probably wind a simple power transformer easily enough though.
 
Last edited:
Any further thoughts on my final question?


Finally, I have read many times that the quality of the rectifier tube can have a big impact on sound quality. Our BEWITCH currently runs the original Chinese 5Z4P rectifier tubes - and gives no problems. But I do have a couple of nice 1940s Westinghouse Canada VU71/5U4G (NOS) tubes that I'm hoping might suit this amp - in substitution for the current 5Z4P tubes. Can anyone see any merit or problems with this substitution?

I assume too, that by having individual bias for each tube, the additional cost of closely "Matched" sets of tubes, becomes unnecessary.
No.
You still want both tubes in a push pull pair to "amplify equally well", that
is have equal Gm.

Most serious vendors has little on no additional cost for matching as they

will sift through the tubes for test anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Leave the 6SL7 tubes and remove the 100uf by pass cap on the 6Sl7' s cathode resistor. This will reduce the gain and decrease distortation.


I hope nobody minds me giving this oldish thread a bump...

We recently purchased a nice, preloved BEWITCH 6550 amp and are impressed with how it sounds.

The amp in its (reasonably) stock format has too much Gain for us however - which makes the stock (ALPS BLUE) volume pot almost unusable with our efficient speakers.

I have been thinking of changing the preamp tubes from 1 x 6N9P (6SL7 High Gain) and 1 x 6N8P (6SN7 Reduced Gain) to running two 6N8P instead - as proposed by the Lampizator author. With this in mind - and to achieve adequate Gain for the circuit, using 2 x 6N8P per channel - I understand that halving the values of resistors R2 / R3 / R4 / R5 will deliver this outcome; without causing other problems - and possibly providing better sonics, purely because the 6N8P is a better sounding tube than the 6N9P. Would the panel agree with this thinking and support this change?

As an aside, the previous owner has made a couple of upgrades already - seeking to extend frequency bandwidth: as follows: -
  • C3 and C4 have both been bypassed by an audiophile quality Polypropylene Cap 2.2uF/400V; and
  • R1 has been bypassed by a audio quality Cap 100uF/25V

With the previous (thread below) discussion around the complexity of the NFB loop on this amp, I was thinking to leave the NFB well enough alone - although it is tempting to try resistor R14 100K at (say) 200K or more. Worth a try?

I am also wondering what Lampizator was looking to achieve, by bypassing C9 33uF/400V with a 68uF/600 MKP - AND removing R22 completely. Is this an attempt to make the Power Supply less noisy?

Finally, I have ready many times that the quality of the rectifier tube can have a big impact on sound quality. Our BEWITCH currently runs the original Chinese 5Z4P rectifier tubes - and gives no problems. But I do have a couple of nice 1940s Westinghouse Canada VU71/5U4G (NOS) tubes that I'm hoping might suit this amp - in substitution for the current 5Z4P tubes. Can anyone see any merit or problems with this substitution?

I'm keen to understand what the more experienced circuit designers make of the thoughts above, on this BEWITCH 6550 amp circuit.

Appreciated.

[I have attached what I understand to be the original BEWITCH circuit schematic - including the circuit changes that have already been completed...]
 
Originally posted by hellbender: Leave the 6SL7 tubes and remove the 100uf by pass cap on the 6Sl7' s cathode resistor. This will reduce the gain and decrease distortion.

@hellbender

Many thanks for this simplistic approach.

Can I ask, where do you stand on the removal of the previous owner's installation of 2.2uF caps bypassing the stock .47uF cap at C3 / C4?

Do these 2.2uF caps also need to be removed? Or are they offering any benefit at all?
 
Last edited:
Leave the 6SL7 tubes and remove the 100uf by pass cap on the 6Sl7' s cathode resistor. This will reduce the gain and decrease distortion.

Can anyone explain to me how leaving this bypass cap in place - as installed by the previous owner - delivers increased Gain and distortion, in this circuit?

My understanding is that having this 100uF cap - bypassing the original 100R resistor in this position - simply serves as a bypass filter, filtering (approx.) >160Hz frequencies.

So, what else is this capacitor doing here - and how is it doing it?

Or is the potential reduction in Gain and distortion - as proposed by hellbender - simply a result of returning back to the (originally designed) 6SL7 tube in this position; and the removal of the 100uF cap simply facilitates this return?

(Sorry - still learning... :eek: )
 
Last edited:
The 100uF cap removes any possibility to act as phase inverter.
Several people has suggested to at least restore to original "lampisator"
config.

Myself finds the whole design odd and faulty, but that is me. I also

lacks meaningsful data of the performance as lampisator suggests it
and with the 100uF cap (and other mods)


Discussing an amp that has no firm claim and no measured parameters
seems a little like religion to me.
 
cathode currents determine the tube transconductance, inside the tube there is a cathode resistor because of cathode current, this resistor do not show in schematics, and this resistor is in series with the external resistor to the cathode, if this external resistor is bypassed, it will look as if no external resistor was present, gain therefore is higher than when no bypass cap was used...plus the unbypassed external resistor acts as a local negative feedback.....
 
Last edited:
cathode currents determine the tube transconductance, inside the tube there is a cathode resistor because of cathode current, this resistor do not show in schematics, and this resistor is in series with the external resistor to the cathode, if this external resistor is bypassed, it will look as if no external resistor was present, gain therefore is higher than when no bypass cap was used...plus the unbypassed external resistor acts as a local negative feedback.....

Good info. Thank you TonyTecson

This is dove-tailing nicely into the research I am doing elsewhere, trying to understand what is happening in these "seemingly" simple circuits.

It's not simple at all....