Choosing replacement coupling cap values - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Analogue Source
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Analogue Source Turntables, Tonearms, Cartridges, Phono Stages, Tuners, Tape Recorders, 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
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 15th February 2011, 06:02 PM   #1
studeb is offline studeb  United States
diyAudio Member
studeb's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Diego
Default Choosing replacement coupling cap values

I am refreshing an Akai GX 77 tape playabck circuit with new coupling caps. Unlike other Akai model's circuits, this one has different values for each coupling cap. The other earlier models have 10uf except for the cap before the Radj, which is 0.47uF. Yes the transistors are different compared to the other models, but the layout is the same. Is there any reason i cannot replace them all with 10uF or 22uF? I can do like for like, but if i can improve it, why not. I cannot see why they used what they did. There is no lack of real estate there, and the new caps are genereally smaller than what was put in 25-30 years ago.

Thanks for any help.

Here is the GX-77 schematic:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg GX77 PB.jpg (61.1 KB, 63 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 09:11 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Larger coupling capacitors increase bass response. Too much can cause instability in some circuits. Otherwise, use what you have on hand.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 09:20 PM   #3
kevinkr is offline kevinkr  United States
diyAudio Moderator
kevinkr's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Blog Entries: 6
The input impedances in both stages shown is fairly high, so smaller caps were chosen as that was all that was needed to attain the desired frequency response.

You might want to avoid increasing the values of most of these caps as the charging time constants become excessively long which can affect operating point of those stages until the caps are fully charged. Smaller electrolytics tend to have somewhat better HF and small signal performance than larger value caps.

You may be able to replace these with low voltage films as well.
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th February 2011, 11:37 PM   #4
studeb is offline studeb  United States
diyAudio Member
studeb's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Diego

Thanks, i am still learning. I had thought that bigger was better for coupling caps as it decreases the LF roll of. Guess there is too much of a good thing.

i have thought about films, i think they would have to go under.
i have to order anyways.
  Reply With Quote


Hide this!Advertise here!
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
Coupling cap replacement in series? TechnoBeaver Tubes / Valves 8 8th November 2010 01:33 AM
Polar electro with bypass cap to replace nonpolar as coupling cap? at77 Parts 0 12th January 2010 02:05 AM
choosing cap values for aikido jayme Tubes / Valves 2 25th October 2006 02:09 AM
Coupling cap. values??? stoo Tubes / Valves 1 8th January 2006 04:39 AM
changing (de)coupling cap values Klimon Tubes / Valves 14 25th April 2005 09:33 AM

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13 AM.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2017 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2