Burn-in requirement, for the Vitamin-Q's?

[BrianDonegan]

Electrolytic caps do require conditioning and dry out over time (the electrolyte is is not a solid). That is why they require burn-in. Preferably this is done with DC voltage near the rated voltage of the cap for a certain period of time. Check with your cap mfg for details.

[EDIT: This usually takes about 30 minutes]

Film caps are a different animal. They are solid and do not require burn in.

 

[AudioCats]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianDonegan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Film caps are a different animal. They are solid and do not require burn in.

The VitQ in question is paper in oil, the dielectric is actually liquid. If it was a PP or teflon cap I wouldn't have asked the question. I have no previous experience with using oil caps in audio circuitry

Anyway, I am listening to VitQ's right now (put 5 in series and plugged into the wall for overnight). They are indeed quite good. Definitly different from the Kimber I was using.

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudioCats /img/forum/go_quote.gif The VitQ in question is paper in oil

Unless paper or oil oxidise/burn, there really isn't that much that changes about them. They are pretty chemically inert compared to electrolytes and aluminium.

 

[AudioCats]

Well, didn't quite expect this thread to turn into a "burn-in, true or false" kind of debate.

Just did a quick comparison of 0.66uf VitQ vs. 1.5uf Sonic-1 vs. 1uf Kimber, the VitQ has more flesh, more body, and more substantial bass too. But somehow there is a glare somewhere in vocal frequency. The caps were used as output in a CDP. IC was quad-braid silver/teflon, amp= SRM-1, phones= SR-Lambda. The Sonic-1 and Kimber, though don't quite have the body as VitQ, don't have this glare problem (or at least not to the point of being noticed). The test song was Diana Krall's Departure Bay.

So now I am serious: will the glare go away with time? If you have experienced similar situation 1st hand, please please please provide some insights. I really like the "feel" of the VitQ sound, but the glare can be a problem for extended listening sessions.

 

[Uncle Erik]

This is burn in:

And I didn't notice much change in the Vitamin Qs I picked up a few months back. Just listen to your gear. Enjoy it.

 

[tomb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudioCats /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, didn't quite expect this thread to turn into a "burn-in, true or false" kind of debate. Just did a quick comparison of 0.66uf VitQ vs. 1.5uf Sonic-1 vs. 1uf Kimber, the VitQ has more flesh, more body, and more substantial bass too. But somehow there is a glare somewhere in vocal frequency. The caps were used as output in a CDP. IC was quad-braid silver/teflon, amp= SRM-1, phones= SR-Lambda. The Sonic-1 and Kimber, though don't quite have the body as VitQ, don't have this glare problem (or at least not to the point of being noticed). The test song was Diana Krall's Departure Bay. So now I am serious: will the glare go away with time? If you have experienced similar situation 1st hand, please please please provide some insights. I really like the "feel" of the VitQ sound, but the glare can be a problem for extended listening sessions.

Are these the VitQ's I sell? I think you mentioned that they were. If so, then that means you're putting three in parallel to get that 0.66uf, right? It may be that's contributing to the glare. All things being equal, that shouldn't make a difference, but boutique capacitors and their audio effects don't always follow hard and fast rules. Just guessing ...

 

[AudioCats]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomb /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are these the VitQ's I sell?

I got them off ebay, what I meant was the ones I got are also 0.22uf/100V VitQ's. sorry about the confusion.
Up on further inspection thought, mine are not exactly the same as the ones shown in your link, mine read "96P190" instead of "196P". Are they different animals?

I was indeed using three in parallel to get 0.66uf. Anyway, I put the caps in my spare system and left it runing, will see if there is any improvement after a few days. Fingers crossed.
Maybe I will have to get some larger value ones to see if the paralleling has anything to do with the glare.

 

[tomb]

The 96P - series are the best ones available, although I've not been able to tell the difference from the 196P's. Other series are not really paper-in-oil, some sort of vaseline, instead.

Maybe it's the paralleling. Did you get these from Dick Landis at LA Surplus? His are the most reliable. Some of the others may be lacking (old and used up).

EDIT: One other possibility and I hate to mention it, but real VitQ's (what you have) are extremely neutral - very detailed, but neutral. It may be possible that the glare is in your system, but the other caps color it. Most boutique film caps tend to have a midrange bloom, even falling off in the bass and highs somewhat - VitQ's do not.

 

[AudioCats]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomb /img/forum/go_quote.gif EDIT: One other possibility and I hate to mention it, but real VitQ's (what you have) are extremely neutral - very detailed, but neutral. It may be possible that the glare is in your system, but the other caps color it. Most boutique film caps tend to have a midrange bloom, even falling off in the bass and highs somewhat - VitQ's do not.

that might be what is happening. The "CDP" I was using is actually a PCDP, a Sony D-9. It sounds surprisingly good with the VitQ's. I will try to install the VitQ's into my X555ES when I get a chance (will have to open the case, desolder and resolder and desolder and resolder, too much work for a quick test....

)

 

[tomb]

That must be it. Dsavitsk confirmed for me this morning that paralleling VitQ's is not an issue.