Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Analog Line Level
Home Forums Rules Articles Store Gallery Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Analog Line Level Preamplifiers , Passive Pre-amps, Crossovers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17th November 2009, 11:44 PM   #1
johnm is offline johnm  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
johnm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Hampshire
Default Bypassing a 100uF output electroytic - which value?

Hi folks.

I've just inherited a Quad 34/FM4/606 system purchased around 1988/89. I am recapping each item and they're all pretty straightforward.

Before anyone says anything, yes I am aware the Quad 34 hasn't got the best reputation for sound quality, but for sentimental reasons (they were owned by my Grandfather who got me into hi-fi in the first place) I want to keep them running without any major mods (I have other systems for that!).

The output caps on the Quad 34 are 100uF cheap electros (used to be 100uF tants on earlier models). I know that these are often placed in error on the circuit board (wrong polarity markings on circuit board which never appeared to be corrected, which I find odd), and can leak causing trouble - luckily my 34 is totally clean inside. These are C77 and C78. Just to be on the safe side I am replacing the caps with non-polar Nichicon ES which I already have. I have read it's best to bypass these (to clean up the treble) with a small value polypropylene or polystyrene cap.

My question is which is best? 0.1uF or 0.01uF for bypassing the 100uF signal capacitors? I have done a search but most posts appear to relate to PSU use, not signal.

Many thanks,

- John

Last edited by johnm; 17th November 2009 at 11:49 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2009, 11:53 PM   #2
sandyK is offline sandyK  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sydney
John
Why not try all 3 options, and see which sounds best to your ears ?
You may even prefer the no bypass option.
SandyK
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2009, 12:06 AM   #3
rdf is offline rdf  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
rdf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: the thermionic past
Personally I wouldn't go less than 1/100 the main cap value, or 1 uF. It literally depends on cap and trace length and where the bypass is applied but going anything less (in ideal Spice world) risks the bypass resonating against the main cap's inductance.
__________________
Blame the Manichaeists
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2009, 12:07 AM   #4
johnm is offline johnm  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
johnm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Hampshire
Hi Sandy - I own an older version of the Quad 34 too (which has been fully modded), and from experience I know the tracks on these lift VERY easily.

I really don't want to risk that on this inherited Quad 34. I'd rather take guidance from someone else who's bypassed signal path electros.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2009, 12:13 AM   #5
johnm is offline johnm  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
johnm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Hampshire
Thanks for that RDF - so everyone using 0.1 or 0.01uF bypasses are actually making things worse then by the sounds of it?
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2009, 12:44 AM   #6
Did it Himself
diyAudio Member
 
richie00boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Gloucestershire, England, UK
If they are not leaking and given the risk of lifting traces, I would seriously consider just leaving them alone. In the position where they are they will pass very little current and never get even warm, so their lifetime will be many thousands of hours.

Also I agree with rdf's 1/100 rule.
__________________
www.readresearch.co.uk my website for UK diy audio people - designs, PCBs, kits and more
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2009, 12:49 AM   #7
rdf is offline rdf  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
rdf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: the thermionic past
Well, they're probably doing something they didn't intend and is 'technically' worse. Whether it sounds worse or not in that specific circuit application is a different question. I never found tiny bypasses transformative and, as sandyK appears to hint, eventually they get pulled out in favour or either no bypass or one approaching the 1/10th the main cap's value.

All that said, this may be less applicable to electrolytic caps than film-on-film. Someone did a series of measurements on bypassed electrolytic caps revealing little or no resonant behaviour. My own tests on a bypassed 100uF motor run film/oil cap showed definite resonant behaviour at high frequencies, which is why I tend to shy from them now. Could be the right answer is 'solder and listen'.
__________________
Blame the Manichaeists
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2009, 02:13 AM   #8
Eva is offline Eva  Spain
diyAudio Member
 
Eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Near the sea
Send a message via MSN to Eva
Bipolar electrolytics have typically double the ESR, double the leakage current and higher dissipation factor (probably double too). Definitely not recommended over a standard polar when there is a known DC bias and you are free to choose.

Paralleling capacitors may lead to resonances easily. The tale about erratic behaviour of electrolytics in the upper audio frequencies is a pure myth. In the beginning I was putting 100n or 1u films everywhere, until I learned to measure and calculate things and discovered that in some circuits they were not doing anything useful and in others they were doing plain harm. Paralleling is only useful when low impedance in the Mhz range is required and ESR and ESL have to be considered to avoid resonance (electrolytics with not too low ESR get well with either film or ceramic).
__________________
I use to feel like the small child in The Emperor's New Clothes tale
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2009, 01:20 PM   #9
johnm is offline johnm  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
johnm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Hampshire
I'm more confused than ever now - I remember reading an article (by Cyril Bateman in Electronics World) saying Non polar types are to be preferred in the signal path for lower distortion?

Damn this hobby can have you running around in circles

Here's the specs for the Nichicon ES non-polar which I was going to use:

www.nichicon.co.jp/english/products/pdf/e-es.pdf

Does this indeed look worse than a polar cap? I'm afraid I'm out of my depth with capacitor spec sheets.

Last edited by johnm; 18th November 2009 at 01:22 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 18th November 2009, 01:27 PM   #10
JC951t is offline JC951t  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Just my 2 cents. Never like the sound of bypassing irregardless
of bypass caps used. Film or BG NX's. It just does not sound right
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Black Gate 100uf + 100uf 350v MarkHathaway Swap Meet 0 22nd December 2006 12:19 PM
jensen 100uF + 100uF matthew2456 Parts 0 13th September 2006 06:32 PM
WTB: ELNA Silmic II 100uF/100V and 100uF/63V cartman Swap Meet 1 22nd June 2006 08:41 AM
ARE ALL 100uf and 50v capacitors the same? supra94 Parts 3 27th July 2004 10:43 PM
FS Black Gate SKZ 350v 100uf/100uf x 2 capacitors Mark Hathaway Swap Meet 0 1st March 2004 09:25 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:44 PM.

Page generated in 0.12001 seconds (78.62% PHP - 21.38% MySQL) with 10 queries

Copyright ©1999-2012 diyAudio