[Jasper9395]

Hi Lehmanhill, it was reading your post which sparked my interest in the K71-4. As I mentioned I have the 10uf K71-4 paralleled a 0.1uf K72P-6 and a 1uf MBM. I think the MBM mix with the them, while the MBMs add a bit of body they are also quite transparent which is very important when you are dealing with caps like the K17-4. Further, adding these to the mix did not mess up the soundsgate which was improved by the K72P-6.
 
I have had this combination in my amp for a few days now but I think I a slightly smaller MBM cap might be better. I just finished some more testing with and without the MBM tonight. Without the MBM the combination f K71-4 and K72 has deeper and punchier bass but the bass also sounds a bit more forced, boxy, and less natural. There is also less bass in quantity overall signature is more forward with a more attack and airy highs. Upper mids are emhasised voices and guitars really stand out. I also think the sound is slightly more detached from the speakers but this could be due to the forward signature.
 
With the MBM caps the sound becomes more focused on the midrange instead of upper mids and highs. Overall the sound is more balanced. The sound is less punchy but much more natural and organic with transients being more drawn out. I think a smaller MBM cap might retain just a bit more airiness and make the sound just a tad punchier and more detached from the speakers.
 
Today I asked an ebay seller to make me a selection of MBM caps of different values. When these arrive I will play around with them a bit to see what ratio is best.
 
Also, I have seen these in widely different voltage ratings from 160 up to 1500. I wonder what the sonic differences are.

 

[coinmaster]

Hi. I have a question about mundorf s/g/o caps.
I have a LD MKVI+ amp and I want to upgrade the caps to Mundorf s/g/o .
Someone I know used .64uf caps and said they made the amp sound like a whole new amp.
I found a good deal on 1uf caps and I'm wondering if I risk anything by going up to 1uf.
I would assume there is a size that is considered "too big" and since my friend found nirvana in the .64uf caps I might be risking bad synergy by getting something bigger.
Any thoughts?

 

[jazzwave]

Hi. I have a question about mundorf s/g/o caps.


I have a LD MKVI+ amp and I want to upgrade the caps to Mundorf s/g/o .


Someone I know used .64uf caps and said they made the amp sound like a whole new amp.


I found a good deal on 1uf caps and I'm wondering if I risk anything by going up to 1uf.


I would assume there is a size that is considered "too big" and since my friend found nirvana in the .64uf caps I might be risking bad synergy by getting something bigger.


Any thoughts?

 


To avoid risk, I always rolling caps with same value. Caps can be Film Capacitors and Oil Capacitors , Teflon etc.
I tried Jensen PIO and Mundorf SGO on my SET 300B amp, I prefer SGO..

 

[Jasper9395]

OK time for an update on the MBM paper in wax capacitors
 
The MBM capacitors sound very warm, full bodied, and have a slightly rolled off though extended top end. They really bring out the bass and lower mids while providing a lot of texture. Another positive trait of this capacitor is that it does not effect soundstage negatively, this is an area where it in on par with the teflon caps. While the MBM is very transparent, it does not quite exhibit the same level of transparency as the teflon K72P-6, FCH or the polystyrene K71-4. The character of the bass is different to that of the teflon capacitors which have a tighter, more controlled bass, sound a bit drier and provide less bass quantity. Overall the character of this capacitor actually reminds me of the Mundorf Supreme although the Mundorf is far less transparent.
 
In terms of price these are inexpensive, I bought a bag with about 30 MBM caps of different values for 4.75 USD. Another positive is that these caps are relatively compact. This is especially true for the 160v version. The 750v MBM capacitors are quite a bit larger. I have experimented a little with the 160v and 750v versions, keeping the capacitance the same, the 750v version is more transparent bringing it close to the level found in teflon caps.  
 
These capacitors mix quite well with teflon caps as well as the K71-4 capacitor as they add a bit of warmth and body while taming the highs. In my pre-amp I have experimented with a mixture of MBM and FCH capacitors which worked quite well. I currently have the MBM in use as a bypass on the K71-4 input capacitor of my power amp. I decided to only keep the bypass on the K71-4 as using them in both places resulted in too much warmth and a slightly wooly sound. Overall I think this is a very nice cap which is worth experimenting with especially if your system sounds bright or cold.
 
In terms of bypassing I am using a 0.25 750v MBM capacitor and a 0.1 uf K72P-6 to bypass a 10uf K71-4 this is working quite well. Before I was using a 1uf MBM which in my system was too large a value.
 
These are the 750v and 160v versions of the 0.25uf MBM capacitor

 

[lehmanhill]

Nice report.  I have got to make some time to play with them.
 
One thought since they are a bit stronger at the bottom than the top.  It might be fun to cut away the outer aluminum can as Jon and others have done with other caps.  Since it is a paper in wax cap, I expect it will be dry inside.  You could just wrap it with several layers of kraft paper for insulation, candle wax seal the ends, and see what happens.  Others write that removing the metal often opens up the high end of a cap.
 
Once again, have fun.
 
Jac

 

[Jasper9395]

Hi Jac,
 
Thanks for the encouragement, I had already done some potting but in the past couple of days I did some more. You were right about the MBM caps being dry inside. Today I read on a ebay sellers page that the MBM caps are waxed paper and aluminium foil which seems to be correct.
 
Here is a picture of one of the 750v MBM caps which I opened.

 
So far I have removed the metal sleeve and encased two K73-16 caps (crossover), and four FCH caps (pre-amp) in candle wax. I also removed the metal sleeve from two MBM (input cap bypass) caps and wrapped these in baking paper. I am using these inside my amp as I am afraid wax could melt inside. My impression from these three modifications is that it gets rid of unwanted distortion while not changing the basic character of the capacitors. The result is that the background becomes darker while transients are revealed. By transients I mean the decaying frequencies associated with a particular sound. These become more audible which makes everything sound more realistic/natural.
 
My impression was also that the caps don't need to burn in again after having wax applied. Rather I think it takes a little time to get used to the new sound.
 
I was wondering what the advantage of using bees wax is? Also, can anyone recommend materials to pot capacitors in which have higher melting points?
 
I might order some FT3 capacitors to compare to the FCH. It would be interesting to compare them to a better known teflon cap.

 

[lehmanhill]

I can suggest one idea for a high temp potting material, but I haven't tried it on a capacitor, so I don't know the sonic effects, if any.
 
Devcon 2 Ton Epoxy (Devcon 35345) is an epoxy that is available at local home and hardware centers here in the US.  I'm not sure if it is available in the Netherlands, but hopefully there is something similar available.  The advantage of using this for potting is that it doesn't shrink when it dries and doesn't get too hot when curing.  I have used it for electronic circuit boards that need moisture or vibration protection, but it has a service temperature up to about 93 degree C, so it should be good inside an amp.  Epoxy has a higher dielectric constant than, say teflon, which might suggest more distortion, but then, many capacitors are dipped in epoxy, so I'm not sure what to think.
 
What would be ideal would be to find a low temperature curing polymer with low shrinkage and a very low dielectric constant.  Perhaps potting the cap in a housing in wax with just a cap of epoxy to seal the wax in place.
 
Jac

 

[Jasper9395]

Hi Jac,
 
Turns out we do have Devcon 2 Ton Epoxy here. It's not cheap though, almost 15 euros for an amount that covers just 15 square cm. Your idea of encasing the wax in it is interesting though. I was thinking another option could be to encase the wax in varnish. Varnish is sometimes used to pot or vacuum impregnate transformers although it is also possible to use epoxies. I am not knowledgeable at all about what materials would be best suited though.
 
BTW I also read that the operating temperature of the MBM caps only goes up to 70 degrees celsius so I am guessing the caps would basically melt if heated to a temperature higher than this.
 
Best,
Jasper

 

[Nada]

........ I was thinking another option could be to encase the wax in varnish. Varnish is sometimes used to pot or vacuum impregnate transformers although it is also possible to use epoxies. I am not knowledgeable at all about what materials would be best suited though.  
BTW I also read that the operating temperature of the MBM caps only goes up to 70 degrees Celsius so I am guessing the caps would basically melt if heated to a temperature higher than this....

 
That's a  good thought about the wax melting in the caps. Even before actually melting wax could soften and creep which is highly likely to change the cap ratings in a negative way.
 
The usual aluminium shell would serve to both dissipate internal heat build up and prevent creep at warm temperatures.
 
Replacing the aluminium with a heat insulator like resin or wax  might not be a good idea.
 
If you want to be extreme and take off the aluminium housing Id suggest replacing it with some box aluminium like
 


with the cap tied in the centre allowing air all around. This allows a very low dielectric using air  which is still able to convect heat out.
 
I wonder if its worth going to so much effort?
 
How much does the sound improve with the casing stripped off?

 

[Jasper9395]

  I wonder if its worth going to so much effort?
 
How much does the sound improve with the casing stripped off?

 
Hi Nada, interesting post and good questions. First your suggestion of using an aluminium box housing might well be worth a try. You could just use a piece of pipe for this purpose which would not be too expensive. For me at least part of the appeal of these Russian caps is their excellent cost/performance ratio.
 
Now the question of how much improvement can be attained by stripping the aluminium housing from the caps is a good one. Of course this is something which is difficult to quantify but I do think it is definitely worth the effort. If we look at the grading scheme used on the humblehomemadehifi site I would say there is between 0.5 and 1 point of improvement. Some caps are more affected than others. In my experience the K73-16 was more effected then the FCH and then the MBM caps. My theory is that the dielectric material used is important here. In the MBM caps wax is used which already kills resonance, the K73-16 on the other hand uses a type of plasticky foil.

 

[Jasper9395]

Paper in Oil cap comparison
 
In the last couple of weeks I have been experimenting with some different paper in oil capacitors. I have tried the K40y, MBGO-2, and MBGCH-1. These caps are very interesting as they can be as transparent and open as teflon caps yet much more fleshy, and lush. I will focus on the latter two caps as the K40 has been commented on many times before. I used these caps on the inputs and outputs of my pre amp where they are directly in the signal path.
 
Here is my impression of the MBGO-2. The fist thing you will notice about the MBGO-2 is how incredibly spacious it is. This cap really brings the music into the room, the music is not even between the speakers, with this cap it is literally in the room. This cap has a lot of air; the top end is open, smooth, and detailed there is a lot of spacial information. Interestingly, it is able to pull this off without sounding bright or harsh. The overall presentation is laid back especially compared to the teflon caps which have much more attack. In terms of transparency it is on par with the teflon caps I have tried yet it is also incredibly lush and fleshy. It really adds a lot of body and timbre to the sound, it is certainly a cap of which you will notice the presence. The midrange of this cap is very nice, it is insightful and detailed yet never analytical. I would judge the frequency response as being slightly midrange focused. Dynamics are also good. To me the only area in which this cap is lacking is the bass. It just does not have the same level of control in the lower octaves which the teflon caps exhibit. This leads to bass sounding a bit confused and muddled at times and the a lack of punchiness. One way in which to describe this cap is that when listening to Nina Simone it is great but with Daft Punk there is something missing.
Now a quick comparison between the K40 and MBGO. While K40Y is very musical and has a lot of "pop and jest" I prefer the MBGO. While the K40 has many positive attributes to my ears the it has a few big problems. First, it sounds closed. I have used it in several applications but it always makes the sound more localised to the speakers. Second, the bass of this cap is very wooly, it sounds uncontrolled and does not have enough presence. Last, whenever I have used the K40s I always hear a slight unnatural emphasis on the 'S' 'T' when listening to voices and cymbals. This is something I have eliminated from my system and when a cap re-introduces it, it does not make me happy.
 
Now the MBGCH-1, these are not well known and were just 4.5 USD for four matched 0.25uf caps. I used these in the same place as the MBGO caps and they sound very similar. However, to my delight the MBGCH-1 caps are even better than the MBGO caps. They do everything the MBGO does right but sound a tad smoother and bit more detailed while improving upon the already excellent soundstage of the MBGO. With the MBGCH-1 the speakers almost disappear. Most importantly however, the bass of these caps is much better. The lows sound much more organised, bass is tighter, more controlled and decays much faster. This results in more punchiness and impact. Last, and also on a positive note, the MBGCH reaches a bit lower then the MBGO. However, while the MBGCH is more punchy I would still characterise it as relatively laid back sounding in it's presentation. Interestingly, when listening to the MBGCH-1 I was reminded of the sound of the Denon D2000s I used to own. In terms of frequency response this cap puts slightly more emphasis on the lower end than the MBGO but it is still fairly neutral with slight midrange focus.
 
For now I am keeping the MBGCH-1 caps in my pre. They provide me with a nice balance of attributes which my system needs right now. They add lot more soundstage, more body and fleshiness while also being punchy enough. Further, they are also smooth and transparent enough not to mess anything up. All this swapping of caps and searching on eBay shows what a bit of experimentation can do. Changing a few caps here and there can make a huge difference but ultimately the trick is to find components which create synergy.

 

[JamieMcC]

  Paper in Oil cap comparison
 
In the last couple of weeks I have been experimenting with some different paper in oil capacitors. I have tried the K40y, MBGO-2, and MBGCH-1. These caps are very interesting as they can be as transparent and open as teflon caps yet much more fleshy, and lush. I will focus on the latter two caps as the K40 has been commented on many times before. I used these caps on the inputs and outputs of my pre amp where they are directly in the signal path.
 
Here is my impression of the MBGO-2. The fist thing you will notice about the MBGO-2 is how incredibly spacious it is. This cap really brings the music into the room, the music is not even between the speakers, with this cap it is literally in the room. This cap has a lot of air; the top end is open, smooth, and detailed there is a lot of spacial information. Interestingly it is able to pull this off without sounding bright or harsh. The overall presentation is laid back especially compared to the teflon caps which have much more attack. In terms of transparency it is on par with the teflon caps I have tried yet it is also incredibly lush and fleshy. It really adds a lot of body and timbre to the sound, it is certainly a cap of which you will notice the presence. The midrange of this cap is also very nice, it is insightful and detailed but never analytical. I would judge the frequency response as being slightly midrange focused. Dynamics are also good. To me the only area in which this cap is lacking is the bass. It just does not have the same level of control in the lower octaves which the teflon caps exhibit. This leads to bass sounding a bit confused and muddled at times and the a lack of punchiness. One way in which to describe this cap is that when listening to Nina Simone it is great but with Daft Punk there is something missing.
Now a quick comparison between the K40 and MBGO. While K40Y has very musical and has a lot of "pop and jest" yet I prefer the MBGO. While the K40 has many positive attributes to my ears the it has a few big problems. First, it sounds closed. I have used it in several applications but it always makes the sound more localised to the speakers. Second, the bass of this cap is very wooly, it sounds uncontrolled and does not have enough presence. Last, whenever I have used the K40 I always hear a slight unnatural emphasis on the 'S' 'T' when listening to voices and cymbals. This is something I have eliminated from my system and when a cap re-introduces it, it does not make me happy.
 
Now the MBGCH-1 these are not well known and were just 4.5 USD for four matched 0.25uf caps. I used these in the same place as the MBGO caps and they sound very similar. However, to my delight the MBGCH-1 is even better than the MBGO. They do everything the MBGO does right but sound a tad smoother and bit more detailed while improving upon the already excellent soundstage of the MBGO. Most importantly however the bass of these caps is much better. The lows sound much more organised, bass is tighter, more controlled and decays much faster. This results in more punchiness and impact. Last, and also on a positive note, the MBGCH reaches a bit lower then the MBGO. However, while the MBGCH is more punchy I would still characterise it as relatively laid back sounding in its presentation. Interestingly, when listening to the MBGCH-1 I was reminded of the sound of the Denon D2000s I used to own. In terms of frequency response this cap puts slightly more emphasis on the lower end than the MBGO but it is still fairly neutral with slight midrange focus.
 
For now I am keeping the MBGCH-1 caps in my pre. They provide me with a nice balance of attributes which my system needs right now. They add lot more soundstage and more body and fleshiness while also being punchy enough. Further, they are also smooth and transparent enough not to mess anything up. All this swapping of caps and searching on eBay shows what a bit of experimentation can do. Changing a few caps here and there can make a huge difference but ultimately the trick is to find components which create synergy.

 
Nice I haven't yet tried the MBGCH-1 caps but I have tried the MBGO with a teflon bypass for output caps and they have seen off quiet a few more modern and significantly more expensive caps  I feel that you have nailed describing their sonic signature.
 

 

[Jasper9395]

   
Nice I haven't yet tried the MBGCH-1 caps but I have tried the MBGO with a teflon bypass for output caps and they have seen off quiet a few more modern and significantly more expensive caps  I feel that you have nailed describing their sonic signature.

 
Thanks for the compliment Jamie. The MBGCH-1 are definitely worth a try especially considering the price! It looks like your using K72-6 caps to bypass those MBGOs. What sort of ratio are you using to bypass and how does this improve things?

 

[JamieMcC]

90uf MGBO (3X30) bypassed with 0.056uF K72-6 no particular ratio I just used what I had to hand.
I thought there was a increase in depth of tone across the board and a slight increase in resolution. The most noticeable difference was to the top end more which was smoother and more refined with out any extra brightness and virtually no trace of the sibilance I had been previously experiencing with my Beyerdynamic T1 on some tracks.  

 

[Jasper9395]

Interesting, I might have to order a few smaller value teflon caps then to bypass those 0.25uf caps in the pre.