Am I measuring the output wattage correctly?

joulupukki

Tele-Holic
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Posts
897
Location
Utah
Am I doing this right? I don’t have a pure resistive load, but I do have a reactive load (Torpedo Captor X). I’ve got the main output plugged into that. Out of the ext speaker jack I have it connected to a short cable that I’ve got tied to my oscilloscope and my digital multimeter. I’m feeding a 1000Hz signal into the input with the master volume dimed, and just enough volume knob without it clipping/distorting.

If I’m making the calculations correctly, my Mk I version of this amp is putting out 16W of clean output and Mk II is around 21W. Are these calculations correct?

1679509204209.png


The scope picture shows measuring the Mk II:
8148F7FB-8E29-40DB-8ACB-A3F2D2462BC2.jpeg
 

Phrygian77

Poster Extraordinaire
Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Posts
6,893
Location
Crawfordville, FL
It is unlikely that your speaker is 8 ohm at 1000Hz.

Edit: Derp der. You're Captor is also probably not 8 ohm at 1kHz either. It has a choke to simulate the impedance rise of a speaker.
 

SerpentRuss

Tele-Holic
Ad Free Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2021
Posts
712
Age
60
Location
North Carolina
You must have a few extension speakers lying around, why not hook one up and throw a blanket over it (so you can stand the sound level) and see what you get, it would be an interesting comparison to this test. As far as your math goes, if that's what you're asking, I think your calculations are correct.
 

joulupukki

Tele-Holic
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Posts
897
Location
Utah
Looks good. You could try it at another frequency (125 Hz?) to see if the reactive load is throwing things off.
Good idea. I’ll do that before putting everything away.

You must have a few extension speakers lying around, why not hook one up and throw a blanket over it (so you can stand the sound level) and see what you get, it would be an interesting comparison to this test. As far as your math goes, if that's what you're asking, I think your calculations are correct.
Hehe. My family is gonna LOVE that. But I like that thinking. I’ll see if I can do it quickly without them noticing.
 

Phrygian77

Poster Extraordinaire
Gold Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Posts
6,893
Location
Crawfordville, FL
@joulupukki it's possible that lower frequencies may be slightly less than 8 ohm. You can just measure what it is at 1KHz. It would be helpful to know the output impedance of your signal generator. Put a 100 to 1k resistor in series with the generator and the Captor. Send 1k into it, and measure the voltage drop across the resistor to calulate current (obviously you should measure the exact resistance first). Then, measure the voltage across the Captor.
 

tele_savales

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Posts
1,589
Age
57
Location
Brooklyn, Joey!
I can't even imagine pushing my not-in-a-cab bench speaker to the onset of clipping w a 1000hz signal, even though I do hate my upstairs neighbor.

Since you've been on a roll with multiple builds going you might as well make a load box. There's a whole lot of different schematics on Aikens site.
 

tubedude

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Posts
1,766
Location
east georgia
The standard for audio measurements is 1kHz resistive. So build/buy a resistive load for amp measurements. Then all results can be used in comparison. Reactive loads are for speaker simulation. They have a rising impedance and are not good for measurements, just reducing levels and generating a signal for recording, reamping, whatever.
The peak to peak voltage is cut in half, multiplied by .707, squared, then divided by your load, usually 8 or 4 Ohms. That gives you RMS power. It seems like a low level because amp manufacturers misrepresent power in various ways. I just built an AB KT88 pair final that puts out 26 WRMS. Similar amps out there will say it has a 70W output. A Twin Reverb on the bench recently put out 33 WRMS. Fender calls it a 100 Watt amp.
 
Last edited:

joulupukki

Tele-Holic
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Posts
897
Location
Utah
@Phrygian77 interesting idea to figure out the impedance. I‘ll have to give that a shot another time.

I remembered that I have this non-reactive attenuator I built (and never use). As far as I know, it’s a resistive load and turned all the way down measures 8.5 Ohms of resistance. Hooked up to that…

A367DCB7-109B-43BC-9568-F7E19E714D04.jpeg


Not too much difference between 125Hz and 1000Hz so I’ll only show the 1000Hz:
1679516713808.png


Interestingly, why would Mk I not be putting out a smooth sine wave like Mk II?
C41DB6C8-384C-4AF1-BE26-B2CF455873E6.jpeg
B695AA6D-EF56-43FB-A778-A6E5044D2358.jpeg
 

corliss1

Poster Extraordinaire
Gold Supporter
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Posts
6,324
Location
Lansing, MI
I also disagree with @tubedude 's numbers :D Those amps really can make 100W all day long.

@joulupukki - your math seems fine to me.

For fun, let's look at the '68 Fender Twin Reverb schematic. The modern service manuals include the AC voltage component along with the DC values. They are putting in a wimpy 10mV AC for their test, for whatever reason. Fine, that output shows 2.3VAC at the speaker jack. So we get:

2.3^2 / 4ohm = 5.29/4 = 1.3W

A wimpy input gives us a wimpy output. Now...let's put in an actual guitar signal. I've found that vintage humbuckers are somewhere around 100mV, give or take - it's a nice easy number to work with. Fender's number of 10mV going in and 2.3V out let's us make a nice, clean ratio:

2.3 / 0.010

which gets us about 230X amplification.

So...my 100mVAC in would be about 23VAC at the speaker jack (that's .100 x 230 = 23). That seems like a reasonable number to me - let's do the math:

23VAC^2 / 4ohm = 529/4 = 132W

So you want RMS from that? Fine, let's get our magic .707 number:

23VAC x .707 = 16VAC RMS at the jack

16^2 / 4ohm = 256 / 4ohm = 64

Maybe we have some Dimarzios instead, and we get to the 85W range pretty quickly. If your Twin is at 33W...something is up.

Another thought worth noting, is that your meter very likely reads the AC component in RMS already, which means we likely don't need to do the .707 math at all if you're taking your AC reading with most any multimeter (although check your user manual to be sure)

I *think* I got all that right, but the numbers got blurry after a bit.................
 

tubedude

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Posts
1,766
Location
east georgia
You first should convert peak to peak voltage to VRMS, then square it and divide by the load resistance.
RMS is .707 of the PEAK Voltage, not peak to peak. So half the peak to peak voltage to get peak, THEN multiply by .707 to get VRMS, square it and divide by the load.
I generally use 500mV as my input voltage. Fender is using a lower number likely to insure the amplified signal is not clipped, so as to get a good number to check that the gain stages are operating correctly. Remember, this procedure was developed in the 1950's when few people had a scope. So it's done with a meter only. Without the benefit of an oscilloscope it's hard to know the onset of clipping, so the input is safe sided to get a valid number to verify operation, not as a full output test.
With a scope, you can use whatever voltage is needed to get the maximum clean signal for determining full output.
So crank your amp to get max clean sine wave output @ 1kHz. Measure the Peak to Peak height of the displayed sine wave, divide in half to get the Peak voltage, multiply by .707 to get VRMS, square it , then divide by the load impedance to get RMS power.
 
Last edited:

tubedude

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Posts
1,766
Location
east georgia
The problem with using a meter is the assumption that a displayed RMS value is unclipped. That's not the case. It could be a square wave. All an RMS reding on a meter means is the input is converted to its DC equivalent. It can't tell if the signal is clipped. Measure output with an RMS meter of max clean waveform. As you increase the signal progressively toward a squarewave the number will increase. If it was measuring just clean RMS voltage the number would stay the same.
True RMS meters are converting the input, clean or dirty, mix of AC and DC, to the DC equivalent voltage that will generate the same amount of heat in a load. It doesn't read correctly for our purposes unless the signal is an undistorted sine wave.
 
Last edited:

tubedude

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Posts
1,766
Location
east georgia
@Phrygian77 interesting idea to figure out the impedance. I‘ll have to give that a shot another time.

I remembered that I have this non-reactive attenuator I built (and never use). As far as I know, it’s a resistive load and turned all the way down measures 8.5 Ohms of resistance. Hooked up to that…

View attachment 1099701

Not too much difference between 125Hz and 1000Hz so I’ll only show the 1000Hz:
View attachment 1099702

Interestingly, why would Mk I not be putting out a smooth sine wave like Mk II?
View attachment 1099703 View attachment 1099704
Your Mk1 waveform looks like some rectification spikes from a noise source. Is it repeatable? Is there a phone, TV, or game console nearby?
If the external environment is the same, and the results are repeatable, you might have internal coupling of rectifier pulses. Maybe time to open it up and scope the power supply waveforms. This is a what mark 1, Boogie?
Can you post a schematic?
 

joulupukki

Tele-Holic
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Posts
897
Location
Utah
Your Mk1 waveform looks like some rectification spikes from a noise source. Is it repeatable? Is there a phone, TV, or game console nearby?
If the external environment is the same, and the results are repeatable, you might have internal coupling of rectifier pulses. Maybe time to open it up and scope the power supply waveforms. This is a what mark 1, Boogie?
Can you post a schematic?
@tubedude thank you for all your good answers.

These amps are single-channel AB763 6V6 amps with a few modifications from the original circuit (like bias wiggle tremolo). I’ve just dubbed them the Mk I and Mk II so I can tell them apart when talking about them. I built them from scratch using the width of a Princeton Reverb with concepts borrowed from Rob Robinette’s Blackvibe 6V6 and Hoffman’s 1-channel AB763.

There are a couple differences in implementation between the two…

Mk I:
- Uses a stand-up power transformer from Musical Power Supplies (PT330M, 660Vac center tapped 140mA: https://www.musicalpowersupplies.com/app/download/7115014784/PT330M_REVD_DWG.pdf)
- Uses a 40/20/20 can capacitor for everything but the B+4, which I’ve used a 22uF F&T
- B+ wires fly over the top
- Grounding more traditional Fender style with PT ground separate from preamp ground
- Uses a stainless steel chassis I salvaged from the front panel of a tankless water hear (never again – it was such a pain to drill!)
- Uses generic CF and MF resistors and Mallory 150 caps
A8905D21-A26A-4309-A1AB-F7380178FC9E.jpeg


Mk II:
- Uses a lay down power transformer (Mojotone Deluxe Reverb PT, significantly higher voltages, 708Vac center tapped 150mA: https://www.mojotone.com/Deluxe-Reverb-Power-Transformer-125P23B)
- Uses Nichicon radials for reservoir and filter caps with each section of the circuit grounded at the negative terminal of the cap
- B+ and most runners go under the board
- Uses a chassis I made out of 5052 0.090 aluminum sheet
- Uses Dale MF resistors and upgraded SoZo Blue, some Jupiter, and Mallory 150 caps
E7422F13-B2D6-4142-AEE0-6FDBC71B7ABD.jpeg


The schematic is attached. I’ve also attached the two different layouts except the layout for the Mk I doesn’t show a couple of actual updates (like elevated heater center tap and the abandoned 4th cap in the can cap that I replaced with the 22uF F&T in the preamp).

Mk I definitely has more “buzz” at full tilt. I‘ve always chalked that up to thinking it’s the PT (audibly louder even w/o a speaker). But perhaps it’s something else and related to the non-smooth sine wave that I’m seeing via the scope.
 

Attachments

  • b-verb-ab763-schematic-v1.19.pdf
    539 KB · Views: 10
  • b-verb-ab763-v1.14.pdf
    616.7 KB · Views: 5
  • b-verb-ab763-layout-v2.0-h.pdf
    729 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:

Paul G.

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Posts
4,491
Location
Rhode Island
I had a tech back in the day that would measure output of various amps. He said Twin Reverbs put out an average 67WRMS. Which, BTW, is a lot.
 

joulupukki

Tele-Holic
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Posts
897
Location
Utah
I can’t seem to duplicate the spikes like I could yesterday in Mk I. The only thing that changed is that …

I took MK I’s GZ34 and put it in Mk II to see if MK II would be happy with it. It was. So I put it back into Mk I. Since then, it seems to be much cleaner. Maybe there was some slight corrosion on the rectifier tube pins or on the socket? Weird.

1679586847663.jpeg
 
Top