Paramour I Iron options

[randy@matrixq.com]

I have a nice pair of Paramours (I love saying that), that look and sound great, but alas I can't leave well enough alone.

Would the output transformers currently used on the Stereomour and the SEX 2.1 be an improvement over the somewhat humble specos that I currently have?  This is a Paramour I with C4S installed.  Would there be any circuit changes that would need to be made to accommodate them? 

Just exploring some options, really.

 

[Paul Joppa]

They would be an improvement. They are the same size and shape as the original upgrade transformer (which mounted at a slight angle but the holes do exist). The main problem is that they have exposed solder terminals rather than wires. A BCP-15 gapped for 50mA, or the new matching plate choke would be a further improvement; as with the old upgrade package you can re-purpose the original place choke as a power supply choke.

 

[randy@matrixq.com]

Paul, thanks for your response.  Is there enough space to allow insulating the solder terminals so it could be top-mounted safely?  Could some heavy 3-1 heat shrink tubing do the trick?

 

[Paul Joppa]

It looks much like the FC-1, which is on the Bottlehead Products page.

 

[Paul Joppa]

I looked at this again, since poster Pfenning may have a problem with his old upgrade transformers. The difficulty is that the terminal sticks straight out from the bobbin, with nothing for the shrink-wrap to hang on to. I've contacted Doc B - between Shawn, Doc B, and the rest of the crew we may come up with something acceptable but it's not clear yet what that might be.

 

[randy@matrixq.com]

Since posting, I've gotten a set of Paramounts and ordered the Magnequest upgrade iron for them.  This means that I will have outputs and chokes from the paramounts to use wherever I can.  I was going to get the Paramount build done before asking how those might work out in my Paramours.

 

[Paul Joppa]

Electrically, the Paramount output transformer is fairly well suited to the Paramour. The impedance is a bit low (3K not 4K) but the magnetic headroom is great. The plate choke is the same - could be higher inductance, but it's much better than stock.

But again, both of them have exposed terminals and pose a shock hazard if top mounted. There are holes suitable for either on the power supply side - but the PSU is in the way for under-chassis mounting. I don't see an suitable place for the second without drilling at least one new hole.

Now Paramour II used the same chassis as the Paramount, so it would handle the iron just fine - if you can scam Doc B out of a couple chassis plates, and lay out the power supply which is different.

 

[mrarroyo]

Would using "liquid tape" work?

 

[Paul Joppa]

Would using "liquid tape" work?

Just what I was thinking - but didn't want to post until we tried it. I don't know whether it is tough enough by itself, or how well it sticks to the nylon bobbin material.

 

[randy@matrixq.com]

I think I would try the liquid tape with heavy heat-shrink on top.

The larger (Paramount) chassis plate concept is intriguing, but would require ditching the nice wooden cabinets that I made and require new.

The power transformers would fit (same size hole spacing but shorter in height).  Obviously the larger plate would fit the output transformer and choke perfectly.  I would also benefit from the IEC connector on the chassis instead of cord running from underneath.

Very tempting indeed.