Silmics are good for audio signal and coupling around analog stages. There is no point in putting them around the SMPS power supply, there are better capacitors for that, SMD. To choose the right capacitors, you need to know their purpose in the circuit and therefore choose the right one. The end result could be even better than you think.
I had understood the Silmics we good in most power supplies, I could swap out for FM/FR's but not super keen on removing and resoldering on the SMD pads, any suggestions welcome though. I could add a film bypass cap, assume you mean the caps top right
While it is true there are capacitors engineered specifically for SMPS applications, there is no reason (other than higher cost) that Silmic IIs should not/cannot be used for SMPS in most cases. Generally don't add a film bypass capacitor across a good electrolytic because a) there is likely no benefit, and b) there is a real risk of degenerative behaviour.
it is very much relevant, if you are trying to improve something that is much better served by SMD/low inductance and trying to avoid noise pickup when your stated purpose is to reduce noise. It may not cause irreparable harm by itself, but it certainly isnt going to improve anything. We arent just talking about the silmic capacitors, we are talking about flying leads much longer than if they were in suitable patterns, rather than smooshed onto a much too small SMD pad. Again, the effect is likely to be quite small, but it doesnt take much to offset zero benefit 🙂
Typically a purpose is stated, a tactic applied, a result measured. Just throwing parts at a board because you have them isnt going to get the job done; but hey. if they 'sound better' they 'sound better'
Last edited:
lol, I see the message I couldnt see till I refreshed said something rather similar, but wrt film caps.
As I said, I'm no expert but have read a number of threads and prepared to try upgrading caps when a product is built to a price and I have very few other options. What have I got to lose (assuming I don't miss solder or draw too much current on an OpAmp), its a few hours work and £50 on caps
I am about 15 hours of playing to burn them in and I have listened to a couple of test tracks and it is actually already noticeably better, with improved resolution and separation with the bass notes and a greater level of dynamics from the subs. Hey I could be kidding myself, but then I could be doing the same when I try a new piece of equipment. The only reason I have the mini DSP is to control 4 subs and that is because I was dissatisfied with the modern AV processors, I had an Acurus ACT4 that retails at £12k+ and preferred the sound of analogue out from a BR player and so have been upgrading what I have available 😉
I am about 15 hours of playing to burn them in and I have listened to a couple of test tracks and it is actually already noticeably better, with improved resolution and separation with the bass notes and a greater level of dynamics from the subs. Hey I could be kidding myself, but then I could be doing the same when I try a new piece of equipment. The only reason I have the mini DSP is to control 4 subs and that is because I was dissatisfied with the modern AV processors, I had an Acurus ACT4 that retails at £12k+ and preferred the sound of analogue out from a BR player and so have been upgrading what I have available 😉
Who said there was a problem ?, other than attaining a level of quality for the bass that minimises the impact of an additional A>D and D>A
I am thinking that upgrading to a Mini DSP HD would make FAR more difference than a cap upgrade.
Yuk, all that added lead inductance... Did you use a schematic to help determine the changes, did you even look at the IC data sheets and layout recommendations. If any of those added caps are on SMPS then you are more likely to add noise, it looks like a proper audiophile mod...
Its been covered before that 0.6mm copper isn't really going to add lead inductance to a thin track the DACs are the following, I did look but wasnt brave enough to try replacing tiny SM caps for Wima's. Im also couldn't see the 100uf on the diagram, just number of 10uf for the 4528
Hey Im no electronic engineer or circuits design guru, just a hobbyist with a passion for film and music and a soldering iron. I actually dong know where two channels are A>D as the 5366 is only 6 channels
https://statics.cirrus.com/pubs/proDatasheet/CS5366_F5.pdfhttps://statics.cirrus.com/pubs/proDatasheet/CS42528_F2.pdfhttps://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ADAU1442_1445_1446.pdf
Marce do add any insight if you are able, criticism is easy
Hey Im no electronic engineer or circuits design guru, just a hobbyist with a passion for film and music and a soldering iron. I actually dong know where two channels are A>D as the 5366 is only 6 channels
https://statics.cirrus.com/pubs/proDatasheet/CS5366_F5.pdfhttps://statics.cirrus.com/pubs/proDatasheet/CS42528_F2.pdfhttps://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ADAU1442_1445_1446.pdf
Marce do add any insight if you are able, criticism is easy
Ah, thanks that makes sense, they are both 114db, I suspect channel 1,2 are covered by this as I think the 4x10 only has the 4258
Yes randomly glomming leaded components into a high frequency circuit designed for SMT has a high probability to make things worse. Doubly so if the replacements are chosen for audiophile credentials rather than checking parametrics.