Capacitor type for crossover - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

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 28th July 2007, 06:13 PM   #1
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Send a message via AIM to ThSpeakerDude88
Default Capacitor type for crossover

I have been running my 'maggie horns on top of my sansui's for about a year now. I recently redid the boards they are on. I was simply running them off of the main line with a 2.2uf np cap. I have found it to be a tad harsh and overbearing at times.

I don't have the time to order some high quality caps right now ( will later) so I need a quick fix. I found that 1uf works best for what I want, and it gives the high end a certain aireyness without being overbearing. I am going to go to the shack and get a 1uf np cap, but I want to know opinions on the following:

Electrolytic

Tulantum

Metal Film

I was thinking about going with metal film, what do you guys think?
__________________
always preach the gospel-
and when necessary use words.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2007, 06:22 PM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Metal film, preferably polypropylene. Aluminized film second best. Some electrolytics sound soft, many do not. Unfortunately there are a lot of concerns beyond type; lead attachment being one.

It takes caps a while to break in (shouldn't but it does) so early comparisons can be misleading.

Tantalums are not a good idea at all; one of the few cap types that show easily measured distortion.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2007, 07:10 PM   #3
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Send a message via AIM to ThSpeakerDude88
hey thanks for the responce. I bought two 1uf metalized film caps. 250wvdc, gee thats a lot of wattage there Don't think my tweeters will be seeing more than 10 watts haha.


Anyways I am putting them in now, I will let you know how they sound, and try to post pics after I stain the bases for the horns.
__________________
always preach the gospel-
and when necessary use words.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th July 2007, 09:07 PM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
That is 250 volts DC!

Nothing to do with wattage or power. simply the maximum DC voltage across the cap before there is a risk of breakdown.

Not really relevant in a crossover.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2007, 12:37 AM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Default The quick fix to a nonpolar

The quick fix when using a nonpolar cap is to put a small value metal film cap across it. In a pinch, here are two caps that are readily available and offer excellent value and sound.

http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...entPage=family

http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...entPage=family

Though I'm new to this forum, I've been a broadcast and recording engineer for over 25 years and have been rebuilding equipment for longer then that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2007, 05:55 AM   #6
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
I've been into audio for 11 plus years and I have heard dozens of capacitors. Everything from military specd, to audiophile grade. Ranging in price from just a few pennies to hundreds of dollars.

And the best capacitors that I have ever heard are Vishay. These are made in Germany by Vishay Roederstein to be exact, model number MKT 1822. They were previously know as the ERO capacitors. The MKT1822 is a box style timing capacitor, made out of metalized polyester. They range from 1000pF - 15.0uF and have voltages from 63vdc - 250vdc.

Most audiophiles will disagree because it goes against all audiophile grade logic. They don't have Teflon, copper foil, silver foil, polypropylene/foil design, silver leads, oil, etc. But what they have is what counts, absolutely stunning sound.

It is virtually vale free and grain free. I have never heard any other capacitor come close! They have incredible resolution and sparkle to the high frequency. The term "liquid" should have been invented for these caps. Plus they have the most un-electric midrange I have ever heard. The best part is that they are dirt cheap, a few bucks max for the larger values. And they work as well in speaker crossovers as they do as coupling or bypass capacitors in amplifiers, preamps, dacs, etc. Here's a list of just the few capacitors which I compared the MKT 1822's to.

AuriCap
Hovland
SCR Solen
Jensen
RelCap Audio Cap Theta
MultiCap RTX
MultiCap PPMFX
Russian Military Teflon High Voltage Types
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2007, 01:39 PM   #7
omni is offline omni  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rossford, Ohio
Nagysaudio, I got 4 of the Vishay MKP1837 caps.............I have not installed them yet, as I am in the process of tweaking my crossover with a few notches...........When I get to the point of finally bypassing, can these values be used on the midrange as well as the tweeter?...........Do they pose any potential problems for the safety of my drivers? {maybe a dumb question}. In your experience, does the difference these Vishays make come quickly, or is there a "break in" time for the difference to become noticeable?............Respectfully............... Omni
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2007, 05:15 PM   #8
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Default I agree...

Vishay caps do sound good-and you can even find them in Radio Shack capacitor assortment kits from time to time. Here's an example of what he speaks of-five caps for $1.50. These caps are quite usable for bypassing larger nonpolars, filter design, DC coupling (though I prefer servos for this-opamps are cheap enough these days).

http://www.opamp-electronics.com/~op...oducts_id=1145

Roderstein also makes very good sounding metal film resistors that are also dirt cheap. radio Shack used to sell an assortment of them for a few dollars. Alas, they discontinued them a couple years ago. I built many projects with those kits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2007, 05:52 PM   #9
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Hi Omni,

Even thought the Vishay MKP 1837 is of better construction (polypropylene vs. polyester), the MKT 1822 still sounds better.

However, the MKP 1837 will still sound fantastic!

What values do you have? You did not indicate that in the post. If you're bypassing, they should be about 0.1uF. This will not have any effect on the crossover slopes and your driver will be fine.

But if you bypass them with large values (anything over 1.0uF) this will change the crossover slopes.

As for break in time, well... that's a myth.

Norbert
  Reply With Quote
Old 29th July 2007, 06:42 PM   #10
omni is offline omni  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rossford, Ohio
NagyAudio............They are the .1 uF value....The ones Tony Gee speaks of...........Omni
  Reply With Quote

Reply


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
Capacitor type question for the Speaker vadimgal Multi-Way 3 12th September 2007 07:53 PM
what capacitor type is best used on Carlosfm's non-inverting chipamp? jarthel Chip Amps 8 24th August 2007 12:12 AM
Capacitor Type ... Help papanohn Parts 8 13th November 2006 08:34 PM
Capacitor type for simple headphone amp GianLorenzo Headphone Systems 3 20th December 2004 08:45 AM
what type of capacitor to protect tweeter in active filter setup timsch75 Multi-Way 8 9th December 2004 10:53 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:41 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2