1, 2.2, 3.3, 4.7, 6.8, 10, 15, 22. 47 are the standard values (& decade multipliers thereof). Never actually come across a 25uf in practice.
The tolerance is usually only about 20% anyway so a 22 could be close to 25 (or the 25 be closer to 20)
This thread brings lots of memories 😄
Answering (more or less) in order.
they are as common as dirt, only now they are called 22uF, go figure 😄
Commercial parts "aim" at a certain value, but there are manufacturing tolerances so in practice there are no 2 parts with the exact same value .
Manufacturer "could" measure all and print a little sticker for each but it would be maddening so next best is to create a series of values and assign the closest one, specifying a tolerance.
Old style series was "2 - 5 - 1", so 40s 50s schematics showed .02uF , .05, etc.
Modern is exponential, and better tolerance, so same would be .022 , .047 , etc.
In practice, same thing.
IF designer demands higher precision, he will say so in schematic or parts list; if not ..... 🤷🏻
Using "multiples of 5" was also popular, hence your 25uF caps, but don't sweat over that.
I have used tons of those, even have some in old parts bins.
Unusable by now because tinned legs oxidize or corrode and can't be soldered any more, we are talking 40 y.o. parts.
Your PCB looks very 80s, probably hand "drawn" using Bishop black crepe tape and pads/donuts or designed using early software (OrCad? ....plain old AutoCad?)
If it works as expected ... I have to ask ... why are you introducing issues by replacing perfectly good components!
Is this a folly or have you convinced yourself that the tinternet says change and that is why you are changing them. If so, don't waste your money, there will be no difference.
Is this a folly or have you convinced yourself that the tinternet says change and that is why you are changing them. If so, don't waste your money, there will be no difference.
Anyone who could answer that with any degree of certainty would be a very rich person. (as in highly paid)
Yes, but the OPs equipment dates back many years, probably from a time when electrolyics didn't exist in audio grade and and they will have aged.
So its quite believeable that there is an audible difference. (and also, we don't know if the OP was wanting more treble)
'Audio Grade', are you being serious? Just because it is on the interweb, doesn't mean it is a true fact!
Look at real facts from manufacturers data sheets, not some Chinesium rebadging service out to fleece you.
Electrolytic capacitors only become 'Audio Grade' after a standard reasonable quality Nichicon/Panasonic/Sanyo etc is re badged. The only difference is the jacked up price.
There is no difference in performance and a 100uF 105°C +-10% electrolytic is the same as any other of the same specification.
Unless, of course, your business is selling them.
Look at real facts from manufacturers data sheets, not some Chinesium rebadging service out to fleece you.
Electrolytic capacitors only become 'Audio Grade' after a standard reasonable quality Nichicon/Panasonic/Sanyo etc is re badged. The only difference is the jacked up price.
There is no difference in performance and a 100uF 105°C +-10% electrolytic is the same as any other of the same specification.
Unless, of course, your business is selling them.
Please post your credentials which prove you have the qualifications to appoint yourself an expert' on this subject.
Here's a test of the Nichicon BiPolar MUSE capacitors that clearly shows their superiority over other electrolytics:
Nichicon Muse ES bipolar caps measured;
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...lar-caps-measured-120db-thd-140db-imd.270676/
Nichicon Muse ES bipolar caps measured;
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...lar-caps-measured-120db-thd-140db-imd.270676/