Hi Bas, I've used to oorder Black Gate caps directly in Japan but that seems to be impossible at the moment because somen else is claiming the exclusive dealership for Holland and is selling them for rediculous prices. Audio Note UK is a lot cheaper (still more than twice the price compared to direct ordering in Japan)
At least the Black Gate's are now a lot cheaper than a couple of years ago. I really hate those dealers who sell theis stuff at a factor of ten or more then they payed for it. Happens a lot in the so called "High End" audio. Be aware
At least the Black Gate's are now a lot cheaper than a couple of years ago. I really hate those dealers who sell theis stuff at a factor of ten or more then they payed for it. Happens a lot in the so called "High End" audio. Be aware
Bob:
My favorite capacitors for power supply use are the 190uF 330VAC polypropylene film capacitors that you can see in the photos of the Connoisseur 3.0 power supply on my website. They sound very open, wide-band, grain-free, uncolored, and of a single character from bottom to top. And the dynamics are not only powerful, they have _tremendous_ slam. There is a feeling of granite-like solidity to the dynamics and imaging that is fundamentally unlike any electrolytic capacitor that I have ever tried. You can hear this solidity immediately, even when the caps are brand-new (as the caps age, the sound gets more open, more free, and mellower). Low-frequency extension, weight and pitch definition are also markedly better with the polyprops.
I have tried changing only the transformer in my power supplies, and only the capacitors. Sonically, the capacitors make more of a difference than the transformer does. I would peg the ratio at perhaps 2:1 in favor of the capacitors.
But the C-core amorphous transformer also makes a difference that is not easily matched with other transformers. I wish that something like an R-core or a round cross-section toroidal would do the trick, but so far I haven't been able to get close to the amorphous C-core.
But I am planning to have some prototype power transformers made which are inside-out, that is, the coils will become the inner core and the permeable material will be wound around the coils. It will be very interesting to see what sort of characteristics and performance this design approach results in. Hope to have some prototypes in hand and initial results logged within a month or two.
regards, jonathan carr
My favorite capacitors for power supply use are the 190uF 330VAC polypropylene film capacitors that you can see in the photos of the Connoisseur 3.0 power supply on my website. They sound very open, wide-band, grain-free, uncolored, and of a single character from bottom to top. And the dynamics are not only powerful, they have _tremendous_ slam. There is a feeling of granite-like solidity to the dynamics and imaging that is fundamentally unlike any electrolytic capacitor that I have ever tried. You can hear this solidity immediately, even when the caps are brand-new (as the caps age, the sound gets more open, more free, and mellower). Low-frequency extension, weight and pitch definition are also markedly better with the polyprops.
I have tried changing only the transformer in my power supplies, and only the capacitors. Sonically, the capacitors make more of a difference than the transformer does. I would peg the ratio at perhaps 2:1 in favor of the capacitors.
But the C-core amorphous transformer also makes a difference that is not easily matched with other transformers. I wish that something like an R-core or a round cross-section toroidal would do the trick, but so far I haven't been able to get close to the amorphous C-core.
But I am planning to have some prototype power transformers made which are inside-out, that is, the coils will become the inner core and the permeable material will be wound around the coils. It will be very interesting to see what sort of characteristics and performance this design approach results in. Hope to have some prototypes in hand and initial results logged within a month or two.
regards, jonathan carr
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for taking the time to provide such an illuminating reply.
When we corresponded before, I was left with the impression that you had some special *electrolytics* made up for you, which you felt 'outdid' the BGs which were under discussion.
It is almost a relief to hear that they were polypropylenes, after all, which as I well know from my own trials will outperform electrolytics, mostly with ease.
In fact the only valve amp I ever constructed used Solen polyprops throughout in the P.S. (after I had tried, and was dissatisfied with Cerafines, and a few others!), but with the low values used here, using plastic films was no problem.
Also, for a short-term temporary measure (for trial purposes) with this valve job, I tried some big polystyrene Multicap RTXs (the last ever available, which I had from Finch & Marsh a while back when I bought an unusually large quantity knowing that the plastic film supplies were drying up) and they sounded unbelievable!
Regrettably, I couldn't afford to leave them in the amp for good, as it simply didn't justify that horrendous cost for the bank of polystyrenes.
Some years ago, I recall being impressed by a Conrad Johnson pre with all polystyrenes in the PS and local bypasses, and I am sorry to see the demise of polystyrene, but, I suppose the environment must come first!
Mostly, with all of the SS circuits I build, I avoid any design which needs anything bigger than a polystyrene anywhere near the signal path, since, as I have said so many times, I detest electrolytics, with the only ones I will put up with now being the BGs, and then only in the PS.
In due course, it would be interesting to learn of the results of your trials with these transformers, if you feel inclined to share the secrets with the rest of us, as such items are not very easy to do much in the way of comparative trials on from the DIY viewpoint, because of the relatively high costs involved.
( A quick edit, after looking back at your comments)
I know what you mean about a seamless sound, as I have never got on very well with bypassing caps myself, in spite of its popularity. I have done it (bypassing) very many times, both in signal paths and in PS., but I always feel that the sound spectrum is somehow disjointed from top to bottom, almost as if each diffent size cap is 'doing its own bit' alone, rather than the combined arrangement acting as a whole.
It is hard to explain, but I will always prefer to use only one value of cap in parallel, and then one sees (hears!) this seamless effect again.
Regards,
Thanks for taking the time to provide such an illuminating reply.
When we corresponded before, I was left with the impression that you had some special *electrolytics* made up for you, which you felt 'outdid' the BGs which were under discussion.
It is almost a relief to hear that they were polypropylenes, after all, which as I well know from my own trials will outperform electrolytics, mostly with ease.
In fact the only valve amp I ever constructed used Solen polyprops throughout in the P.S. (after I had tried, and was dissatisfied with Cerafines, and a few others!), but with the low values used here, using plastic films was no problem.
Also, for a short-term temporary measure (for trial purposes) with this valve job, I tried some big polystyrene Multicap RTXs (the last ever available, which I had from Finch & Marsh a while back when I bought an unusually large quantity knowing that the plastic film supplies were drying up) and they sounded unbelievable!
Regrettably, I couldn't afford to leave them in the amp for good, as it simply didn't justify that horrendous cost for the bank of polystyrenes.
Some years ago, I recall being impressed by a Conrad Johnson pre with all polystyrenes in the PS and local bypasses, and I am sorry to see the demise of polystyrene, but, I suppose the environment must come first!
Mostly, with all of the SS circuits I build, I avoid any design which needs anything bigger than a polystyrene anywhere near the signal path, since, as I have said so many times, I detest electrolytics, with the only ones I will put up with now being the BGs, and then only in the PS.
In due course, it would be interesting to learn of the results of your trials with these transformers, if you feel inclined to share the secrets with the rest of us, as such items are not very easy to do much in the way of comparative trials on from the DIY viewpoint, because of the relatively high costs involved.
( A quick edit, after looking back at your comments)
I know what you mean about a seamless sound, as I have never got on very well with bypassing caps myself, in spite of its popularity. I have done it (bypassing) very many times, both in signal paths and in PS., but I always feel that the sound spectrum is somehow disjointed from top to bottom, almost as if each diffent size cap is 'doing its own bit' alone, rather than the combined arrangement acting as a whole.
It is hard to explain, but I will always prefer to use only one value of cap in parallel, and then one sees (hears!) this seamless effect again.
Regards,
Re: CONCORDANCE
I think it must be in your blood.
Itried tube circuits at least two times and never managed to finish them. The way SS is improving over the years, I believe that sooner or later it will beat tubes anyway.
To Jonathan,
from looking at the pics it seems like the main cap bank is around 2,300uF for both channels. I guess it's enough then? Also, C core
transformer has secondary over primary on ea. side if I see it correctly. How it compares to split bobbin transformers with both windings separated physically?
About bypassing and paralleling:
I yet have to find a single cap that fits the bill. It is always a compromise and I found that paralleling always brings the best of both worlds, at least in tonality. I never paid too much attention to this separation thing (maybe it depends on the music you're listening to ).
My recent find, silver foil caps, always improved sonics, no matter where I put them.
fdegrove said:
I wonder why you guys waste your genius on SS at all.
I think it must be in your blood.
Itried tube circuits at least two times and never managed to finish them. The way SS is improving over the years, I believe that sooner or later it will beat tubes anyway.To Jonathan,
from looking at the pics it seems like the main cap bank is around 2,300uF for both channels. I guess it's enough then? Also, C core
transformer has secondary over primary on ea. side if I see it correctly. How it compares to split bobbin transformers with both windings separated physically?
About bypassing and paralleling:
I yet have to find a single cap that fits the bill. It is always a compromise and I found that paralleling always brings the best of both worlds, at least in tonality. I never paid too much attention to this separation thing (maybe it depends on the music you're listening to
).My recent find, silver foil caps, always improved sonics, no matter where I put them.
O+
Hi,
People have tried for 40 years at least.
While I agree that the gap is closing,when it comes to reproducing music SS still has a long way to go IMHO.
I think the late Leon Halfin was right when he said that tubes were here to stay.
A man I respect as much as I do my own parents,a true genius if I ever saw one.
Ah,one of the big advantages of the tubes is that you work at higher voltages,it matters a lot less what the coupling cap is made of and you don't need the lousy sounding big values.
Best I know so far is still the MIT film and foil polystyrenes.
And even those can be improved upon if I had my say in it.
That is if you value truly transparant sound,
Hi,
People have tried for 40 years at least.
While I agree that the gap is closing,when it comes to reproducing music SS still has a long way to go IMHO.
I think the late Leon Halfin was right when he said that tubes were here to stay.
A man I respect as much as I do my own parents,a true genius if I ever saw one.
Ah,one of the big advantages of the tubes is that you work at higher voltages,it matters a lot less what the coupling cap is made of and you don't need the lousy sounding big values.
Best I know so far is still the MIT film and foil polystyrenes.
And even those can be improved upon if I had my say in it.
That is if you value truly transparant sound,
Re: O+
Last time I tried, Jensens copper foil sounded better than MIT RTX. And RtXS were broken in, Jensens not. But I also know, it depends much on location and the rest of the setup.
fdegrove said:
Best I know so far is still the MIT film and foil polystyrenes.
And even those can be improved upon if I had my say in it.
That is if you value truly transparant sound,
Last time I tried, Jensens copper foil sounded better than MIT RTX. And RtXS were broken in, Jensens not.
But I also know, it depends much on location and the rest of the setup.
LE CHEF.
Hi,
Sounds like you had something in need of a smooth over to me.
The RTX range may be a tad too revealing for a SS device,just my opinion anyway.
I find the Jensen too silky smooth in the mids and not extended enough in the highs to my taste.
If you get a nicely balanced system with them,then why not?
And you did use to bypass with Ultratone Sivlercaps,didn't you?
Cheers,
Hi,
Sounds like you had something in need of a smooth over to me.
The RTX range may be a tad too revealing for a SS device,just my opinion anyway.
I find the Jensen too silky smooth in the mids and not extended enough in the highs to my taste.
If you get a nicely balanced system with them,then why not?
And you did use to bypass with Ultratone Sivlercaps,didn't you?
Cheers,
Re: LE CHEF.
And that's were Silvertones made their job. By comparison RTXs sounded too much compressed (not open enough).
I used RTX before, with good results in my speakers crossovers. I had to parallel them with Hovlands though, to satisfy my taste. My impression is, RTXs increase sibilances too much.
fdegrove said:
And that's were Silvertones made their job.
By comparison RTXs sounded too much compressed (not open enough).I used RTX before, with good results in my speakers crossovers. I had to parallel them with Hovlands though, to satisfy my taste. My impression is, RTXs increase sibilances too much.
Bob:
>I was left with the impression that you had some special *electrolytics* made for you, which you felt 'outdid' the BGs.<
The Connoisseur 4.0 uses a variant of Nichicon's SuperThough electrolytics - peeled. These are much less spectacular-sounding than the Black Gates, but are also less colored and more even-handed than the Black Gates. However, I reckon that their performance is still at a level where personal taste could easily sway the decision. (Note that the SuperThroughs also require weeks to burn in and stabilize.) But IMO, neither the SuperThroughs nor BlackGates can hold a candle to the polyprops.
Frank:
>I wonder why you guys waste your genius on SS at all.<
Genius? Hah! More like insanity. As to why, tubes have _already_ reached a relatively high level of evolution. There are a number of tube designers whose amps sound pretty good, and you don't find too many tube circuits that sound outright bad. But that is the point. A major reason why I don't want to put much effort into tubes is precisely because tubes are already being done well by other designers. For me to try to match those efforts would be a waste of time. I would much prefer to focus my energies on things that _haven't_ been done up to now.
But SS is much less evolved. Today, there are some SS amps that sound decent, but there are many more that don't. My insights are that there is much more potential in SS than other audio designers have been able to accomplish, and my experiences underline these insights. The reason why I focus on SS is because I consider the challenge to be worthy and enjoyable, and I feel that I can create a level of sonic quality that hasn't been attainable before.
Peter:
>The way SS is improving over the years, I believe that sooner or later it will beat tubes anyway.<
I prefer to separate the artistic goals from the engineering methods. My artistic goal is to create amplifiers that achieve a very high level of musical insight and communication. My chosen engineering methods happen to be SS. It is immaterial whether my amps can "beat" tube amps, or for that matter, other SS amps, because the person that I am ultimately trying to "beat" is myself, not anyone else. As long as the final result offers a high level of insight and musical communication, and as long as I can honestly state that I really put myself through the wringer and gave the product my maximum effort, I am satisfied. Besides, there are many people in this world, and they all have different tastes. It is unlikely that a single design will satisfy everyone.
>It seems like the main cap bank is around 2,300uF for both channels. I guess it's enough?<
Each power supply is for _one_ channel. Each channel has one C-core amorphous transformer with separate secondaries, dual rectifier banks, and 12 pieces 190uF polypropylene capacitors. And do note the +/- 144V rails. 2280uF running at 144V has much greater energy storage than the same amount of capacitance at, say, 50V. I wish those voltages could be higher, but the Connoisseur 3.0 is already running at 47~48 degrees centigrade under adequately ventilated conditions. Although the present aluminum chassis has good thermal dissipation capablities, raising the voltages would require a chassis that was even better at dissipating heat.
>C core transformer has secondary over primary on ea. side if I see it correctly. How it compares to split bobbin transformers with both windings separated physically?<
A grounded Faraday shield comes between the windings, and the transformer manufacturer has put in lots of special winding tricks. I tried split-bobbin windings during the prototyping stage, and my memory was that extending the bandwidth via interleaved winding et al yielded superior results. But that was some years back, and I don't remember having put all much effort into the split-bobbon configurations. More recently, I tried split-bobbon R-core transformers, but the C-core amorphous with interleaved windings was clearly better.
regards, jonathan carr
>I was left with the impression that you had some special *electrolytics* made for you, which you felt 'outdid' the BGs.<
The Connoisseur 4.0 uses a variant of Nichicon's SuperThough electrolytics - peeled. These are much less spectacular-sounding than the Black Gates, but are also less colored and more even-handed than the Black Gates. However, I reckon that their performance is still at a level where personal taste could easily sway the decision. (Note that the SuperThroughs also require weeks to burn in and stabilize.) But IMO, neither the SuperThroughs nor BlackGates can hold a candle to the polyprops.
Frank:
>I wonder why you guys waste your genius on SS at all.<
Genius? Hah! More like insanity.
As to why, tubes have _already_ reached a relatively high level of evolution. There are a number of tube designers whose amps sound pretty good, and you don't find too many tube circuits that sound outright bad. But that is the point. A major reason why I don't want to put much effort into tubes is precisely because tubes are already being done well by other designers. For me to try to match those efforts would be a waste of time. I would much prefer to focus my energies on things that _haven't_ been done up to now.But SS is much less evolved. Today, there are some SS amps that sound decent, but there are many more that don't. My insights are that there is much more potential in SS than other audio designers have been able to accomplish, and my experiences underline these insights. The reason why I focus on SS is because I consider the challenge to be worthy and enjoyable, and I feel that I can create a level of sonic quality that hasn't been attainable before.
Peter:
>The way SS is improving over the years, I believe that sooner or later it will beat tubes anyway.<
I prefer to separate the artistic goals from the engineering methods. My artistic goal is to create amplifiers that achieve a very high level of musical insight and communication. My chosen engineering methods happen to be SS. It is immaterial whether my amps can "beat" tube amps, or for that matter, other SS amps, because the person that I am ultimately trying to "beat" is myself, not anyone else. As long as the final result offers a high level of insight and musical communication, and as long as I can honestly state that I really put myself through the wringer and gave the product my maximum effort, I am satisfied. Besides, there are many people in this world, and they all have different tastes. It is unlikely that a single design will satisfy everyone.
>It seems like the main cap bank is around 2,300uF for both channels. I guess it's enough?<
Each power supply is for _one_ channel. Each channel has one C-core amorphous transformer with separate secondaries, dual rectifier banks, and 12 pieces 190uF polypropylene capacitors. And do note the +/- 144V rails. 2280uF running at 144V has much greater energy storage than the same amount of capacitance at, say, 50V. I wish those voltages could be higher, but the Connoisseur 3.0 is already running at 47~48 degrees centigrade under adequately ventilated conditions. Although the present aluminum chassis has good thermal dissipation capablities, raising the voltages would require a chassis that was even better at dissipating heat.
>C core transformer has secondary over primary on ea. side if I see it correctly. How it compares to split bobbin transformers with both windings separated physically?<
A grounded Faraday shield comes between the windings, and the transformer manufacturer has put in lots of special winding tricks. I tried split-bobbin windings during the prototyping stage, and my memory was that extending the bandwidth via interleaved winding et al yielded superior results. But that was some years back, and I don't remember having put all much effort into the split-bobbon configurations. More recently, I tried split-bobbon R-core transformers, but the C-core amorphous with interleaved windings was clearly better.
regards, jonathan carr
LOL.
Hi,
That will never work.
I must say that I have the deepest respect for Jonathans' work though.
If he can pull it off,then why not?
Now,if I can find tubed gear manufacturers that paid as much attention to detail as Jonathan does....
Like Jonathan (I presume) I think it's much harder to build the ultimate (phono) preamp than to come up with a worldbeating amplifier.
Just my assumption though.
Cheers,
Hi,
That will never work.
I must say that I have the deepest respect for Jonathans' work though.
If he can pull it off,then why not?
Now,if I can find tubed gear manufacturers that paid as much attention to detail as Jonathan does....
Like Jonathan (I presume) I think it's much harder to build the ultimate (phono) preamp than to come up with a worldbeating amplifier.
Just my assumption though.
Cheers,
Re: LE CHEF.
fdegrove said:Hi,
****Sounds like you had something in need of a smooth over to me.
The RTX range may be a tad too revealing for a SS device,just my opinion anyway.****
Hi Frank,
I agree with you here, and this fits in with Peter's comments about RTXs being sibilant.
Personally, I believe RTXs to be ruthlessly accurate, but a lot of SS gear is not well suited to this level of 'revealing'.
When I first started to use RTXs, I simply 'automatically' copied my earlier arrangement (Ultracaps with bypasses) and changed to using the same size RTXs with .01 RTX bypasses in place of the earlier caps.
This was almost throughout my system. i.e. preamp, amp, and speakers.
I immediately heard better detail, but the highs were becoming accentuated, like Peter suggests, and sibilant sounds (especially on female vocals) were 'over the top' for my liking.
By this time, all of my signal path resistors were either Vishay BFs or Caddocks which are similarly 'ruthless' (i.e. they don't hide anything!), and I wondered for a while whether the RTXs were, perhaps, not quite so good as I had at first thought.
Anyway, I lived with this setup for most part of a year, during which time I had started to remove some of the smaller bypasses in my speakers, as this seemed to improve this sibilant problem, and, unexpectedly, the extra detail I had gained when originally installing the RTXs remained.
One weekend, when I was recovering from a migraine headache (and I was still feeling rather fragile!) I was listening, quietly, to some music, and the remaining sibilant problems were just too much for me to bear.
So, on impulse, I went through the entire system and removed every remaning low value bypass from the RTXs, and the result was astonishing.
The entire spectrum of sound now seemed fine, there was none of the anticipated loss at HF, and the sound was nicer overall than I had ever experienced in my syatem.
Previously, when considering these bypasses, I formed the opinion that leaving them in circuit could not possibly be harmful to the sound, as whenever I had used bypasses before I went RTX, the bypasses had substantially improved the upper clarity etc.
This almost accidental discovery made it clear to me that RTXs don't need any smaller values to sound at their best, which, with hindsight as they are effectively internally bypassed 10x anyway, does make some sense.
Some time later, I read that Finch & Marsh (Richard Marsh was the caps' designer, of course) do not recommend bypassing their RTXs anyway.
Peter will no doubt put me right about this, but I have a feeling that he is not so averse to using electrolytics in the feedback or signal path areas in his amps, and if this is so, I would stake my life on the fact that this will be lot to do with the sibilant problems he notices when using the more revealing TRXs.
Many years ago, I redesigned my amps to only use plasic films of the quality of RTXs everywhere around the main circuitry, especially in DC feedback blocking etc. and the amps are fully DC coupled everywhere, simply because I couldn't get on with the sound of the lousy electrolytics.
However, when I first got hold of some BGs (about ten years ago) they were merely 'standard' types intended to be used in my turntable PS (for the 90 degree phase shift for the AC motor).
Before I installed these BGs in my T/T PS, I tried them out in my amps in the feedback DC location (temporarily replacing RTXs), just out of curiosity to see how they would sound in such a critical area.
Well after a week or so of burn in, the sound wasn't too bad, but not a patch on how it was earlier, but back came that wretched agressive sibilant sound again.
I know that those BGs were not fully burned in, but with any of my later BG installations anywhere in my system, after a few days in use I have never suffered from this sibilant problem, although there are many other 'shortcomings' during the full burn-in time of these BGs.
So, make of it what you will, but it reinforces my long-held views that electrolytics should be kept well away from *all* signal path circuitry, no matter where and/or how good the caps are, if the best sound is sought after.
It is only because of this aversion to using electrolytics in such locations, that I have been deterred from constructing any of Nelsons designs, as so many of them which are attractive to me do use high value caps in awkward locations which cannot be readily 'designed out'.
Regards,
Re: Re: LE CHEF.
Bobken said:
I'm still experimenting with the caps and although the end of the road is nowhere in sight, the best way is to try everything myself.
Bob,
I wonder what are your findings regarding Cerafines. I thought they were next best thing after BG, but recently found some posts, with people having different views regarding those Elna caps. I bought last batch of them from Parts Connections and was hoping to use them in my best amp project.
As to the price of BG, they are not that awfully expensive, it's just dealers markup makes it seem like. We recently purchase 100 of them directly from Japan and the price was about 1/3 of what the local dealer is asking for.
BYPASS.
Hi Bob,
Lucky for me I hardly ever bypass any cap, I rather use a better one or put smaller equal values in // to obtain the value I require.
Smaller values seem to have faster transient response behaviour IME.
After having read tips in magazines about bypassing caps and so on,I tried it and found it completely unbalanced the system noticing the same lack of coherency as you have described before.
Quite similar to using multistrand wire iso solid core I'd say.
Before I invested in the MIT caps I had read the Finch & Marsh articles in SP (I think) so I was warned and I never even tried it out since to my ears they were simply so revealing and transparant that I never felt any need to bypass them.
You may be right about them being too transparent for use in SS device though.
Maybe we should start recommending golld PIO coupling caps to them?
That should gobble up any sibilants and slow down transient response in the process?
Very fine polyprops for use in PSUs are the ANSAR Supersound,much cleaner sound than the Solen c(r)ap IME.
And they're made in Britain to boot.
Has anyone ever tried the beeswax caps Jupiter is making?
I hear Brian Cherry is planning on carrying them and they should also become available with coper plates ISo the alu ones they use now.
Cheer,
Hi Bob,
Lucky for me I hardly ever bypass any cap, I rather use a better one or put smaller equal values in // to obtain the value I require.
Smaller values seem to have faster transient response behaviour IME.
After having read tips in magazines about bypassing caps and so on,I tried it and found it completely unbalanced the system noticing the same lack of coherency as you have described before.
Quite similar to using multistrand wire iso solid core I'd say.
Before I invested in the MIT caps I had read the Finch & Marsh articles in SP (I think) so I was warned and I never even tried it out since to my ears they were simply so revealing and transparant that I never felt any need to bypass them.
You may be right about them being too transparent for use in SS device though.
Maybe we should start recommending golld PIO coupling caps to them?
That should gobble up any sibilants and slow down transient response in the process?
Very fine polyprops for use in PSUs are the ANSAR Supersound,much cleaner sound than the Solen c(r)ap IME.
And they're made in Britain to boot.
Has anyone ever tried the beeswax caps Jupiter is making?
I hear Brian Cherry is planning on carrying them and they should also become available with coper plates ISo the alu ones they use now.
Cheer,
bypassing
Another important issue regarding paralleling/bypassing caps is observing directionality/polarity. The better caps have outer foil marked and this is usually the end that supposed to be directed towards load.
When using 0.1 Jensens copper foil as input coupling caps in my Aleph X amp I simply had to bypass them with 0.022 silver foil caps for proper sonics. However paralleling 2 caps, there are 4 options as to the way to connect them. I tried all the optios and definitely only one sounded the best, incidentally it was the way where both paralleled caps had the outer foil directed towards the load.
Another important issue regarding paralleling/bypassing caps is observing directionality/polarity. The better caps have outer foil marked and this is usually the end that supposed to be directed towards load.
When using 0.1 Jensens copper foil as input coupling caps in my Aleph X amp I simply had to bypass them with 0.022 silver foil caps for proper sonics. However paralleling 2 caps, there are 4 options as to the way to connect them. I tried all the optios and definitely only one sounded the best, incidentally it was the way where both paralleled caps had the outer foil directed towards the load.
SHIELDS UP.
Hi,
As far as the MITs go,the lettering on the caps has to follow the signal flow.
I.e. in at M and out at the T of MIT.
Most boutique caps I know of seem to respect this when they put their sticker on the caps.
Some caps that you can buy unbranded can give a hard time guessing but usually when you go around the ends of the cap with you indexfinger you can actually feel the foil connection.
Cheers,
Hi,
As far as the MITs go,the lettering on the caps has to follow the signal flow.
I.e. in at M and out at the T of MIT.
Most boutique caps I know of seem to respect this when they put their sticker on the caps.
Some caps that you can buy unbranded can give a hard time guessing but usually when you go around the ends of the cap with you indexfinger you can actually feel the foil connection.
Cheers,
Re: SHIELDS UP.
Unfortunately this is not the case. In the past all my MIT purchases came from Michel Percy and he measures the caps for outer foil and puts the black dot on the outer foil end. I noticed that it didn't match the lettering flow, it was usually 50/50 affair. Sorry for confusion it may bring.
fdegrove said:
Unfortunately this is not the case. In the past all my MIT purchases came from Michel Percy and he measures the caps for outer foil and puts the black dot on the outer foil end. I noticed that it didn't match the lettering flow, it was usually 50/50 affair. Sorry for confusion it may bring.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.