[R-390] capacitor analysis
Helmut Usbeck
[email protected]
Sat, 01 Jun 2002 04:22:24 -0400
If you change the caps to 1.0uf you might end up with some motorboating at
higher volume settings. This happened to me when I did my audio mod. Switched
back to .1 uf and everything was back to OK. The real bottleneck is the
response of the output transformer. (among a couple of others)
Try www.zorkler.com for an audio mod in the local part of the deck.
regards,
Helm. WB2ADT
John Saeger wrote:
> Well, I'm still thinking about which capacitors I'm tempted to pre-emptively
> change in my R390A so I've made a list along with their function. Maybe
> this will help decide what kind of capacitors would be good to use as
> replacements. I started out with the list on Nolan's page.
>
> My feeling is that if a capacitor is a bypass capacitor, it's not that
> critical. As long as there is enough capacitance, a high enough voltage
> rating, and good enough quality and reliability, they could be just about
> anything. Orange drops are great for the small ones. Nothing wrong with
> them. But I think other less expensive things will also work just as well
> in these positions. Polyesters or even ceramics. For the 2uf paper and the
> 8uf tantalum, I'm likely to use big polyesters. I'd make the electrolytics
> polyesters too if it wasn't so expensive to do. For now, I think I'm stuck
> leaving them electrolytic.
>
> The capacitors that pass signals matter more. The famous C553 IF signal
> capacitor is probably the most interesting case. Maybe a low-dissipation
> factor polypropylene like an orange drop could make an actual difference in
> the performance of the receiver. Maybe. My guess is that the receiver has
> plenty of gain, and the signal to noise ratio as well as the gain of the
> vacuum tubes in the signal path make much more of a difference. And since
> so much is at stake if this one goes bad, I think quality, and overkill in
> the voltage rating is the way to go. I haven't decided for sure what to do
> with this one, but I kinda like the idea of a 2KV ceramic here. Maybe even
> a 3KV.
>
> The audio stage is very interesting as well. And I think that maybe here is
> where the mandate to make it cheaper really took it's toll. They started
> out on the right foot with C531, which is in the IF deck by making it a
> 0.1uf. But then things went downhill. Personally, with the possible
> exception of C601 which is the negative feedback capacitor, I'm tempted to
> make them all big. At least 0.1uf. But maybe even bigger. Maybe 1.0uf
> polyesters if I can fit them. I might leave C601 at 0.01uf since by having
> poor bass response in the negative feedback, one might get better bass
> response by leaving it small.
>
> So there's my 2 cents. But since I haven't actually done anything yet, I'm
> still very interested in other opinions. And if I've labeled any of the
> functions wrong, I'm interested in hearing about it too.
>
> Here's the list:
>
> Main Chassis
>
> C101
> 0.22uf paper 100V bypass
> C103
> 50uf electrolytic 50V bypass
> C104,C105,C106,C107
> .068uf paper ??? bypass
>
> RF Amp
>
> C227
> 0.047uf paper 100V bypass
> C256,C309
> 0.1uf paper 200V bypass
> C275
> 0.033uf paper 300V bypass
>
> IF Amp
>
> C504,C505,C517,C521,C528,C536,C538,C543,C547,C548
> 0.1uf paper 200V bypass
> C529,C533,C534,C541,C545
> 0.033uf paper 300V bypass
> C531
> 0.1uf paper 200V AF signal
> C549
> 0.01uf paper 300V AF signal
> C551
> 2.0uf oily paper 500V AGC time constant
> C553
> 0.01uf paper 300V IF signal
>
> AF Amp
>
> C601
> 0.01uf paper 300V AF signal (negative feedback)
> C602
> 0.033uf paper 300V AF signal
> C603
> 3x30uf electrolytic 300V bypass
> C604,C605,C607,C608
> 0.01uf paper 300V AF signal
> C606
> 2x45uf electrolytic 300V bypass
> C609
> 8uf tantalum 30V bypass
>
> Thanks, John
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390