warwickhunt

Errrrm it's a covers band. Unless this is a top notch tribute of course it'll be a hobby, the singer is being a bit of a tool for not having a bit of give/take! Unless you form a band around 'you' and make it clear from the off that it is your band and you have the only say, then everyone should have a voice... not just the person with the biggest personality or the person who is happy to be a bully! I was in a band that focused on American/Southern boogie/blues/soul and we had a nice broad range of covers material to choose from and the whole band had known each other for years and been in bands with each other over the last 30+ years. Early song choices were unanimous (6 in the band) but as we got to the point where we were getting some good buzz about the band, we needed to add material. In our case one of the guitarists started to be the stumbling block. We eventually agreed the best way to choose songs would be for everyone to choose 2 songs and we'd have a simple ranking vote on the 12 songs, the 3 with the most votes would be learned next; nice and fair/democratic... you'd think! We turned up to the next rehearsal having messaged everyone the 3 songs the week before to find the guitarist hadn't learned any of them and wouldn't be learning them as he was going to sit out those songs and go to the bar! To rub salt in the wound we ended up learning one of his suggestions which had received exactly 1 vote... his. The band lasted about 2 more weeks and that was it, we folded, tried to reform but tbh he was pretty vitriolic about the fact we had effectively sacked him and made it quite uncomfortable among the various friendships. Applying what I learned to the OP situation I'd be up front with the singer and point out it is a 'band' and everyone needed to have a say. His bully-boy tactics will only continue to cause grief, so it may as well be all for one or he has to walk (not be sacked).

Yes, that was his first suggestion. However, that was after the 2nd meltdown as he assumed as it was designed without, it wasn't for him to 2nd guess and put one in.

181

Flawed.

No... but I'm sure my wife does!

His thinking is that a component in the preamp is failing but only when its been on a while and gets properly warmed up. This fault then loads the TX (transformer) to the point that it overheats and damages one of the windings... seems reasonable. He's ordering a replacement transformer free of charge and he's going to run tests with the amp operating under load for extended periods. Fingers crossed.

When I have the amp back in my possession I'll try. <edit/update> I forwarded the image to the Tech that did the last transformer and it just so happens that he felt bad that his work had failed so he was looking at what he could do. He thought there should at least be a fuse on the HT side that would prevent the transformer cooking again (his transformer was rated 50% higher than the original). He is also going through every component to see what could have generated the fault, there wasn't any obvious cause and the amp operated as per normal when he replaced the original failed transformer).

Dang! Transformer is no longer in production but I was forwarded this...

In layman's terms can anything in the power section/output affect what happens before it? Could the output / power section be the cause of the transformer burn out?

I alluded to that earlier but don't have enough tech education to know how that works. Could it be that the power module is too big for the front end to power... am I simplifying the language?

2 x 500 watts 4 ohms / 1 x 1000 watts 8 ohms bridged... confusing labelling on the amp itself as it says 2/4 ohms but never run bridged and never below 4 ohms. Bear in mind the power section is class D and transformer is just for preamp valves.

I'm very much at the mercy of you guys as I've no tech knowledge. However, I'd suspect it is custom which would account for the stock replacement burning out. Briefly spoke to someone in the UK office and I've fired off those pics to them but I suspect it'll not have the important info that they'd need to identify it.

Blimey good find!

I did. I've had it repaired once... with a basic component and it worked flawlessly for <5 hours!

I agree or (and I don't have sufficient knowledge but applying common sense) something 'after' the preamp is causing some form of feedback/reverse issue. It could also be a case of the 17 year old transformer had failed but that the new one wasn't the correct spec.

No warning leading to either transformer failing (oddly it never exhibited any of the issues you had, when I used it). I'm waiting to get the amp back from the Tech but the faint whiff of smoke when it died on me leads me to assume it is the same issue... which means there is an underlying problem. I'd like to hope it is a fault and not a design oversight! The Tech who fitted the last transformer has offered a full refund but as he couldn't identify what lead to the failure he hasn't taken up the job of fitting the next transformer (if I can find a suitable one).

Guess what I found; I forgot I'd photographed it first time!

Sadly the original was fritzed (no visible 'useful' info) and the replacement wasn't up to the job so I'm back to square one.

Yes I believe the transformer is purely for the preamp / valves.

Lots of room around the offending article!

Thomas Eich went from Tech Sound to Tecamp to Eich! The guy who did the last work said that he was finding it hard to source the part as it was dual core (that might be my recall of what he said) and ended up getting it from Eastern Europe as a special order... for what good it did! Possibly the part wasn't genuinely compatible but without finding a competent repair guy who won't end up charging more than the amp is worth even after the repair, I want to get all the info I can to support the repair.

Mike at Zoot hasn't any info. No reply from Eich re. schematic... I'll give it another week though.