Messages

[INSIDE]

Wouldn't it be more useful to do a video of the INSIDE of the piano (read: the tines) when this happens?

...those are actually more common than opto-based phasers.

AFAIK the FET based phasers are the most common ones; that's what I wanted to say.

Also, afaik the Oberheim Phaser/Phasor isn't OTA based.

I must say that I'm always a bit confused about the various Caig products. For example the "F" series is advertised sometimes as applicable for both conductive plastic and for carbon controls; however looking at the individual descriptions it's always "conductive plastic".
I've been using F5 spray nonetheless on many carbon controls as well and it seems to work generally well. But sometimes you really need to disassemble the faders - just flushing them might not do it.

F5 spray provides flushing action, FaderLube doesn't. And then there's also FaderGrease. I've noticed that sometimes after cleaning faders (or pots where it's even more pronounced) that the controls lose their "mechanical resistance". Read: they are moved too easily. I believe applying FaderGrease should rectify that.

If everything else fails: I believe those faders still can be bought.

Congrats! I own a similar 88 model.

If I was in your position I'd start from the tone generation and then work my way up through the electronics. So to check all the pickups I'd suggest using it without the internal amp for now. Connect the RCA jack from the harp to a guitar amp and you're good to go. Gently tap the magnets for each pickup with a metal screwdriver and you'll hear a loud "thud" for working pickups. This should get you started.

I believe the power amp in this model suffers from cold solder joints on the molex connectors; so this is something to look out for. I certainly had to reflow a number of solder joints in mine.

It seems to me as if there is some corrosion throughout the piano. Make sure that everything makes good contact (this of course starts again with the RCA jack).

I somewhat hear it in the higher examples; it's pretty much the same with a grand piano.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone

Interestingly the German wikipedia entry

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kombinationston

gives a similar example: C together with E (in the same octave) results in a combination tone two octaves below but a semitone too high in equally tempered tuning.

Pretty much the only thing one can do about this is using an effect that masks this phenomenom; a chorus might work fine here.

I'm by no means an expert for those things but I have seen voltage conversions of all kinds for different instruments. This looks like a Mk II? I own a 88 Suitcase Mk II myself which was a "US" model but was easily converted inside. I suspect that your model is converted as well. I don't think it would run on 110V satisfactorily if it was configured for 240V.

A case in point: https://reverb.com/item/59682940-1974-fender-rhodes-mark-i-stage-73-electric-piano

Retrolinear, the seller, does amazing, fussy restorations of vintage keyboard instruments, often for top artists. But if you read the description of this Rhodes, it's clear that they've examined and decided to leave in place many of the original parts that are included in those refurb kits.

Just out of curiosity: A couple of pics for the reverb.com listing show grommets. Like those two:



Those don't look particularly healthy to me...

I got a good chuckle out of this.
First , it looks as if you would try to install the damper bar "upside down"; the felt needs to go towards the dampers.
Second, it's really easy. Loosen the screw that right now holds the pin (one side is usually sufficient). Push the pin towards the inside of the damper rail (remember how I asked you on the other topic if perhaps the pin had slipped inside?). Position the damper bar, slide the pin with a small screwdriver back into position, fasten screw.

I haven't used one of those myself so I can't say if there is anything special about the sound.
A quick glance at the schematic shows it to be a 4 stage phaser. The elements used for the phase shift are OTA's.
I think there had been comparatively few phaser designs using OTA's; Nobels did one, I believe the MoogerFooger phaser is also using those.

Yes, also "key click" doesn't always mean the same. Sometimes it's more of a very sharp single click (where it might or might not make sense to make it more pronounced); sometimes it's a messy noise consisting of several clicks (this is more common with dirty buss bars).
When the Clavinet emulation was done in Logic (back in the Emagic days, before the Apple takeover) there was also discussion how the aging and "gooeyness" of hammer tips should be integrated in the simulation. Do we really need or want a model of the behavior that the string sticks to the hammer on release of the key and then gives another "thud" when finally breaking free?

I take it you have checked that the pin hasn't simply slipped toward the middle of the damper rail? Or maybe it's rolling around somewhere inside the case?
The bushing looks ok; however the other pin looks atrocious. Remove the rust, please (the whole piano looked a bit rusty as well).
Any mechanic with a lathe should be able to make a new pin if shipping from UK or NL is too expensive.
Lastly, the felt (I think it's cork?): I would leave it alone for now. The part responsible for the escapement still looks ok to me.

Was the key click in Hammonds as desirable as it is today

Is it really? I've worked on Hammonds where players complained about the excessive key click (because the contacts were too dirty).
I think it always comes down to the relation between the attack portion and the sustaining portion. If the attack part is too loud or weird it will feel somewhat out of place. Of course this could be considered a completely new sound; however we usually build on previous listening experiences. A grand piano with an exaggerated "thud" at the beginning of the sound will usually sound somewhat "wrong".
The human ear is very sensitive to the attack portion of sounds so this is a tricky subject.

Thanks for the suggestions; I've done it and it somewhat improved the situation. Still not completely even volume-wise; but I'll see what I can do when I have a bit more time.

Essentially you should try to lift up the harp "flat", as in "parallel to the support". The hinges then will move it automatically forward towards the front, and then you can put it vertical.

As far as the sustain problem goes: My first guess would be that the left pin for the damper rail is missing, perhaps its bushing too.

Tommy Flanagan's "Something Borrowed, Something Blue" contains two pieces with Rhodes, one of them the standard "Good Bait".

The low "D" on my Clavinet is often but not always almost electrically "dead". This depends partly on the selected pickup.

My preliminary guess is that the string vibrates exactly over the gap in the pickup poles; it's the only string to do so. Is there a way to adjust the pickup position just slightly? A quick search so far turned up nothing substantially. Or is there another remedy for this situation?
The string itself vibrates fine acoustically.

The first two soundcloud examples on the product page are electric piano (at least when I call up the examples): "Preludio in Do min" and "Observing the sounds of the world".

Might be an "anti-hiss" mod. I recall something like this at least for the 200. But there the caps are between base and collector.

Vintage Vibe schematic: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0666/2821/files/Wurlitzer_200_Hiss_Kit_Schematic_REV_A_MAY_7.png

AFAIK Vintagevibe has reeds for the 145.

There is no ground loop between the Wurlitzer and the Laptop that I'm aware of - the Laptop runs on batteries (for the measurements) and the interface is USB powered from the Laptop.

I'll give the hiss fix a try once I got the amp running again - the pre-driver transistor just blew... On the other hand the hiss wasn't too bad; I'm more concerned with the hum.

The manual is labeled "wurlitzer-200-200a-service-manual" but certainly does not contain much 200A electronics material; just two pages near the end. The circuit description I mentioned is not part of it at all, neither are the updated schematics for later 200A revisions.
This seems to be an earlier revision of the manual; the other commonly found manual has a separate "Section III" starting with page 64. Page 66 is missing from the copies I've found so far.

[complete]

I wonder if there's a really complete service manual somewhere out there?

The ones I have seen so far (vintage vibe and others seem to miss at least one page, possibly more.
The go up to page number 65 (which is the beginning of the description of the 200A amplifier) but there are clearly the following page is missing since the description stops mid sentence.

I'd probably first take stock what exactly is there and what is missing.

I see a "Fender Rhodes" nameplate, composite hammers with neoprene tips and I think newer tone bars? Old style key pedestals. This would put it into the 72 to 74 time frame?

The two lowest tone bars and tines are missing. The dowel for the sustain pedal is in the small parts bin so that is good. I don't see the damper rail among the parts. Is there any additional hardware, like legs or sustain pedal? Are all 73 keys there?

The damper felts don't look too bad at first sight.

The first thing I would probably check is the pickups. Connect the harp output to an amp and touch each pickup magnet lightly with a metal screwdriver. Working pickups will respond with an audible "thunk". This would give you an idea if you need any new ones (and if so how many). Of course this will only work if the harp wiring is intact. Not sure what is dangling across the pickups in the second pic...

All in all it looks doable to me but it's hard to guess the additional costs and the amount of work involved.

So here's the current situation:

Changed the vactrol to a VTL5C3. This definitely makes a clear difference: The "vibrato" is no longer as strong as before and the distortion is much lower as well. I adjusted the vibrato trimmer a bit so that the intensity is somewhat increased again. In general this seems to be a good compromise between vibrato depth and distortion now. The rail distortion (that was unavoidable with the old vactrol) is no longer there.

Hum and hiss: I've tried to measure the result of various modifications with a spectrum analyzer plugin. Whatever I do there are peaks of the line frequency and its harmonics (50 Hz, 100 Hz, 150 Hz and so on). Interestingly the 50 Hz component is almost unaffected; it's mostly the harmonics.
Signal is always taken out of the Aux out at full volume.

Without any modifications the 50 Hz peak is at around -73 dB, 100 Hz is around -87 dB, 150 Hz is at -79 db, 200 Hz is at -81 dB.

Disconnecting the right hand ground connection to the shield lowers 150 Hz to around -86 dB and 200 Hz to around -93 dB. 50 Hz and 100 Hz stay about the same. This was the most audible change for me.

Changes in the preamp: R1 and R9 to metal film; TR 1 and TR2 to 2N5088, swapped electrolytic caps: No clear change. The hiss seems to have decreased slightly (around 2 to 3 dB).

Recapping C28 and C29 in the power supply: No change; but perhaps a slight decrease in hum from the speakers (which would be normal since those two caps filter the +/-22.5V which is only used in the power amp).

When the Wurlitzer is turned off I'm still getting a peak for the line frequency (but not the harmonics): the peak for 50 Hz is around -105 dB. When I remove the line cord this peak (naturally) disappears. So there must be some interference directly from the wiring. When I move the line wiring between the power input and the molex connector clearly away from the chassis the peak drops to around -109 dB. Unfortunately there isn't much room to do any of this when the lid is closed...

And finally: with the preamp disconnected (desoldered at terminal 3) line interference drops by around 4 to 10 dB; both with the Wurlitzer turned off or on.

(and before anyone asks: the recordings/measurements were done with a Laptop without a power supply and a USB interface so there is no additional potential ground loop)

My question: Is this as good as it gets (aside from installing another amp of course)?

Thank you for your continuing input and ideas. It definitely helps me understand the whole construction and behavior.

Let's reorder this a bit:

When the hood is open, the speakers see no air volumina to work on. If you close the hood, the air volimina inside the piano acts as in a closed speaker box. This will increase volume and bass, so the hum gets louder when the hood ist closed.

So it's essentially the "geschlossene Box" principle. Makes sense.

In most cases, shielding is an issue... There are internal ground loops... The conductive paint inside the case bottom can loose connection to ground... Allways use shielded power cables inside the piano.

The ground loops are definitely there (and getting rid of them changes the hum somewhat). I'm trying to find out the reasoning behind the way the ground wires are connected and where to break the loop(s). Here's my understanding:
The main problem is of course the ground for the tone bar: It's grounded to the amplifier chassis through the preamp (the screw on the bracket connecting both halves of the tone bar) and the grounding wire from the amplifier to the "star ground". But it's also grounded to the amplifier chassis directly through the right side ground wire and (somewhat?) through the left one. Removing the right side ground wire is cleaning up the sound (especially removing the fundamental of the hum), so this one probably should be disconnected. Removing the left ground wire has no audible effect.
I'm a bit puzzled how the two "brackets" onto which the tone bar and action are mounted are supposed to be grounded. As far as I can see the left bracket is automatically grounded to the amplifier chassis because the latter is directly screwed onto it (with the larger screw). So what is the left wire (between the bracket and the tone bar) even supposed to accomplish? On the right side things are a bit more complicated: At least on the model I'm working on the bracket is practically "accidentally" grounded to the amplifier chassis because it simply rubs against it. Still it probably would be a good idea to have a permanent ground wire run to the back of the bracket (as it is stock)?

There's also the question where to run the ground wire from the mains inlet (to the star ground point right of the amplifier board). On this particular model it was simply dangling across the amplifier board. Right now I've routed it through the heat sink but I could imagine it would be best located next to the transformer wires and under the amp board?

Lastly, the conductive paint. I can measure around 100 Ohms at the places where the ink is present but I don't get any connection to the main ground. How is that connection supposed to happen - just by screwing the amp chassis on some wooden (and hopefully paint-covered) parts? Sounds a bit problematic from an engineering perspective.

(I've also re-routed the output cables away from the power cables which poses another problem: What is good practice for routing power and audio on the left bracket? For obvious reasons they are somewhat close there. Right now I've attached the power cable to the outer side and the audio cables to the inner side.)
 
All in all the sound definitely has cleaned up already so I'm probably trying to address the the distortion problem (ordering a vactrol now); and I also might rebuild the preamp.

Hi,

and thanks again for your input.

After talking to the owner I'm not fully sure if it's worth tackling this problem because it was something he was used to. But I might give it a try if the owner decides to go "all in". Which leads me to the next questions/problems:

It's clear to me that the hum is mainly originating from the preamp; when desoldering the preamp cable the power amp is producing very little hum (it's faintly audible but in my opinion non critical). Is there something I should do to the preamp? So far I have refrained from recapping anything since the caps look and measure ok.

The other problem is significantly trickier for me - and I didn't notice it until today: While working on the Wurlitzer it naturally was open and the lid was standing next to it. Imagine my surprise when I put the lid on (so far everything ok) and then closed it and the hum became slightly worse...
It's definitely the 50 Hz fundamental that is getting louder - not drastically but definitely noticeable. Could it be that the mains are coupling directly into the speakers? Or is it perhaps the transformer coupling into the right speaker and though it also into the left one?
(This 200A has the 230V transformer from ep-service.nl installed which seems to get about 1 centimeter closer to the speaker when mounting it without modifying anything. It certainly would be nice if there were mounting instructions for it and if the primary leads were slightly longer...)

Wiring is correct; values are also within spec. With TP5 disconnected the Tremolo pot does indeed nothing.

This of course points a bit at the vactrol, doesn't it? I've seen vactrols fail before...

Thanks, Malte

It's 14.5V which I consider close enough.

The distortion in the power amp seems to be rail distortion; meaning the signal is clipped at +/-22V (roughly). This would probably sound acceptable with a tube amp but is pretty bad with a transistor amp.
I'm not fully sure where the distortion in the Aux circuit comes from.

(This particular Wurlitzer had blown at least one of its output transistor fuses a couple years back; not sure if there was a particular reason for this.)

Voltages on TR1 and TR2 look ok; and the output of the preamp looks fine to me.

The Wurlitzer has a very prominent marking for the volume knob at about the 2 o'clock position which suggests to me that the owner does not intend to play it any louder. That's roughly the position where the signal stays below the clipping when using vibrato.

Thanks, Malte

[NOT]

Thanks, that helps a bit but not much. Is that behavior perhaps normal?

Even with max volume and no tremolo I don't get any noticeable distortion. But with tremolo even with both trimpots at min I get very nasty distortion that makes me fear for the speakers (it's not as bad as with the original settings but still...)

I'm thinking out loud here: With no tremolo everything is comparatively fine. The output of the preamp is around 1.8V peak to peak for heavy handed playing; the signal looks clean on the oscilloscope. With tremolo at max and the tremolo trimpot at min the preamp signal is around 4V peak to peak for similar playing as before; the signal still looks fine and non distorted on the oscilloscope.

This seems to be the "late model" version with the Aux volume control after the Aux circuit.

When turning up the Tremolo control it looks as follows:

The Aux out (pin 11) clips slightly; this is also obvious in the scope. The Aux in (pin 9) does NOT clip.

The headphone out also clips (so do the speakers, naturally). This looks like hard clipping at the power rails; and for obvious reasons this sounds like a recipe for disaster for the speakers.

So my interpretation of all this would be that both the Aux amp and the power amp operate near their maximum capacity without tremolo. Dialing tremolo in results in slightly more than 6 dB signal gain; and both amps can't handle this.
This is insofar irritating that I can raise the "max volume" trimpot to the maximum when not using tremolo and this only results in a slightly "grittier" sound - but when using tremolo things get really nasty even when the "max volume" trimpot is at minimum position.

I also find the tremolo comparatively weak - but on the other hand I'm more used to the Rhodes Suitcase one. It certainly is very different to the one in the Wurlitzer 200, too.

Is all this really normal and expected behavior?

I'd probably check if the Aux out drops out at the same time as well. This would give a hint whether the problem is located just in the power amp section or earlier. Could also be that the power supply is generating the drop outs.

(A cursory search didn't turn up anything, so if this was discussed already please point me to the thread in question. Thanks.)

I'm more of a Rhodes person but was asked by a couple of fellow musicians to work on their Wurlitzer pianos. Recently I already posted about my experiences with a 200; now it's a 200A.
I did a 230V conversion that went pretty flawlessly although I wish the the ep-service.nl transformator had longer primary leads.

The amp is generally sounding fine with the appropriate "bark" and with practically no hum (although the hum shield isn't installed yet). This radically changes when turning up vibrato.

On the 200 it appeared to me as if the vibrato circuit was attenuating the sound; on the 200A it seems as if the sound is boosted instead. Is that correct? It quickly goes into overload and also exhibits lots of hum in those louder portions of the modulation cycle.

Is this normal? Is there something that can/should be done except turning the volume down before turning vibrato up?

Found them. Here's a couple: WIMA and EROMET.

But what is interesting to me is I've seen such modified instrument a few times already. And the funny part is, that the capacitors on all models looked the same which would be uncommon if this was only a DIY-solution and not a professional. There are tons of such caps on the market and they all look different. So it seems there were a guy (or a company) who did this modification as a professional I guess...

I've seen such a mod so far only once; about 15 or so pickups were dead in this particular Rhodes. So this would point more towards an individually done modification. Not sure if I kept the dead pickups and caps; it was a couple of years ago.
As far as your theory goes: perhaps one of the retailers did this to all models he sold?

Thank you for your answer.

I'll probably leave the amp for now as it is. The owner's main Wurlitzer is a 200A and this 200 is mostly a backup at the moment. I am mostly concerned about the supply ripple since that seems to indicate that the power amp is either drawing too much current or that the power supply can't handle the regular load.

A company from Leeds/UK?

[VERY]

Hello everyone; I'm currently working on a 200 that had some amp problems.

It uses a mid-production version of the amp. Originally the amp had a number of problems: when switching it on R10 was emitting "magic smoke" and there was huge ripple on the 44V rail (around 10V). TR1 was swapped for a BC168H (which was highly sensitive to any movement and vibration). R8 was open. There were some modifications (including an additional cap that was practically leaning against the transformer leads) and the aux out wasn't working. TR9 and TR10 seemed to be shot.
After swapping out TR9 and TR10 (and TR8) the power amp started to work and R10 wasn't smoking any longer (I swapped it anyway since it probably was stressed). I recapped the whole thing, installed new power resistors, removed most of the later mods and installed the resistors for the final revision of the aux out. TR1 first got moved to one of the other positions but meanwhile got swapped for an NOS part.

In general it seems to work rather well now but I'm still unhappy with hum and heat generation. From what I've read I know that there are limits to what can be done with this type of amplifier. I would like to know if I'm close to those limits.

The preamp seems to work rather well; it has some slight hiss and minimal hum (the unit has the reed bar shields). When I'm using the aux out through a DI box it's sounding quite good.
The power amp on the other hand still hums slightly.
I'm concerned about the ripple on the 44V rail. This is around 1.8V p-p before R73; less behind it. That ripple is also still slightly present at the base of TR8. In general TR8 (the driver) seems to cause or worsen this: without TR8 the ripple is around 300mV. Power through TR8 is around 125mA. Simultaneously the power resistors get VERY hot; I think R7 already shows some discoloration. This is happening with both the new TR8 and the old one. I'm actually somewhat surprised that the hum isn't dramatically worse given the (comparatively) high ripple.

(There also is the issue with the transformer leads; however I don't think the ripple problem is coming from that. Even worse, there are four transformer leads running next to the amp because its a 220V model.)

So is this as good as it gets? Or can this still be improved?

I've re-checked it and it seems to me that Janne's original schematic has swapped the values for C3 and C4.

The values align well with https://ep-forum.com/smf/index.php?topic=8992.msg52107#msg52107; on my unit the cap next to the volume potentiometer is the 4.7n cap (and on Janne's component drawing it's 5n). So the position checks out. However as we can see from the traces on the bottom this cap is connected to R6 and not R11.

I'll recheck that tomorrow against my own drawing; but the 4.7n cap is the one Janne identified as 5n in the drawing of the placement of the parts. I'll probably upload an annotated picture of the bottom traces.

(resurrecting a very old thread...)

Well, we can't yet confirm the component values in the original Rhodie preamp with 100% certainty.

Actually, now we can.
I'm currently working on a Rhodes with such a Rhodie preamp; and an evening with a bottle of acetone yielded the following results:

C3: 4.7nF
C4: 2.2nF
C5: 2.2nF
C6: 2.2nF

(all also confirmed with measurement)

C1 and C2 are of course 10uF/10V.