monkboughtlunch
Super Member
What are some great sounding sounding electrolytic capacitor brands/model names (22uf) for replacing the original two tantalum phono capacitors in a vintage Marantz receiver?
Tantalum phono capacitor replacement: what are best sounding electrolytics?
- Thread starter monkboughtlunch
- Start date
For phono signal path tants the options are somewhat limited. Either go tants again if you suspect they are faulty or Nichicon KL or MKS.
Tants were originally selected for their low leakage/noise. The KL's offer very low leakage, maybe the best electrolytic(?). Some people
are happy with MKS, I still need to do the listening tests. For general audio path I'm happy with Elna Silmic II's and Nichicon KZ. however
if you use these you will increase the background noise. Also there is some merit to using KL's for "all" signal path as their specs for tan
delta/esr are quite resonable. I'd use the KL's however maybe you can do a shootout between the original tants, KL's and Elna Silmic II's.
Tants were originally selected for their low leakage/noise. The KL's offer very low leakage, maybe the best electrolytic(?). Some people
are happy with MKS, I still need to do the listening tests. For general audio path I'm happy with Elna Silmic II's and Nichicon KZ. however
if you use these you will increase the background noise. Also there is some merit to using KL's for "all" signal path as their specs for tan
delta/esr are quite resonable. I'd use the KL's however maybe you can do a shootout between the original tants, KL's and Elna Silmic II's.
monkboughtlunch
Super Member
Hi mbz,
Many thanks. Is this the one you recommend: UKL1V220KEDANA (Nichicon Leaded 35 Volt 22uF 105C)
Would any of these be a great choice? I have some of the below already on hand. Blue part numbers are hyperlinks to datasheet. The original tantalums Marantz used are axial. However, I think I can fit in a radial caps on the circuit board if needed. I'm looking for the better sounding cap (regardless of whether its axial or radial).
RFS-25V220MF3#5 (Elna SILMIC II 22uF 25V 20% Audio)
RFS-25V220ME3#5 (Elna SILMIC II 22uF 25V 20% Audio)
UKZ1H220MPM (Nichicon 50Volts 22uF 20% Tol.)
TVX1V220MAD (Nichicon 35volts 22uF 5x12 20% Axial)
MAL213836229E3 (Vishay 22uF 25V 20% Axial)
Many thanks. Is this the one you recommend: UKL1V220KEDANA (Nichicon Leaded 35 Volt 22uF 105C)
Would any of these be a great choice? I have some of the below already on hand. Blue part numbers are hyperlinks to datasheet. The original tantalums Marantz used are axial. However, I think I can fit in a radial caps on the circuit board if needed. I'm looking for the better sounding cap (regardless of whether its axial or radial).
RFS-25V220MF3#5 (Elna SILMIC II 22uF 25V 20% Audio)
RFS-25V220ME3#5 (Elna SILMIC II 22uF 25V 20% Audio)
UKZ1H220MPM (Nichicon 50Volts 22uF 20% Tol.)
TVX1V220MAD (Nichicon 35volts 22uF 5x12 20% Axial)
MAL213836229E3 (Vishay 22uF 25V 20% Axial)
monkboughtlunch
Super Member
By the way, the original cap value is "22uf 4v tantalum" for the phono capacitors. The Marantz receiver is a Model Eighteen (18).
monkboughtlunch
Super Member
Also, what are thoughts on the Nichicon UPJ series in a phono application? For example: UPJ1H270MED1TD (Nichicon 27uF 50 Volts 20%)
From the service manual, C704, C712 22uf/4V. Yes the UKL is the one I meant.
The 22uf/35V is a bit of overkill as the dielectric breakdown voltage or
so called working voltage of 4V is well and truely covered by the replacement
of 35V. If you have the 35V at hand then ok, use it. If you need to place
an order I'd go for 22uf/16V.
If at hand then either of the Elna Silmic's would be fine, again there may/should
be an increase in background noise, these are not low leakage.
I have not used the axials but have read good things about them, both should
be ok.
Again, my preference would be the UKL's although try the silmic's.
I have not used the UPJ's, looking at the datasheet, I would still lean to
UKL and Silmic II's for the better tan delta/esr.
If you are looking for a kick ass phono sound then replacing one cap per
channel is not going to do it. I assume that the rest of the Rx has been
recapped? This would produce noticeable improvement. My general guideline
for caps is,
Main Filter Nichicon KW (for small amps)
General power supply, Nichicon UPW
Bipolar power supply Nichicon UEP
Bipolar audio path, Nichicon UES
General audiopath, Elna Silmic II's (or UKZ)
Power supply rails, Elna Silmic II's (or UKZ)
Low noise, Nichicon UKL
The 22uf/35V is a bit of overkill as the dielectric breakdown voltage or
so called working voltage of 4V is well and truely covered by the replacement
of 35V. If you have the 35V at hand then ok, use it. If you need to place
an order I'd go for 22uf/16V.
If at hand then either of the Elna Silmic's would be fine, again there may/should
be an increase in background noise, these are not low leakage.
I have not used the axials but have read good things about them, both should
be ok.
Again, my preference would be the UKL's although try the silmic's.
I have not used the UPJ's, looking at the datasheet, I would still lean to
UKL and Silmic II's for the better tan delta/esr.
If you are looking for a kick ass phono sound then replacing one cap per
channel is not going to do it. I assume that the rest of the Rx has been
recapped? This would produce noticeable improvement. My general guideline
for caps is,
Main Filter Nichicon KW (for small amps)
General power supply, Nichicon UPW
Bipolar power supply Nichicon UEP
Bipolar audio path, Nichicon UES
General audiopath, Elna Silmic II's (or UKZ)
Power supply rails, Elna Silmic II's (or UKZ)
Low noise, Nichicon UKL
monkboughtlunch
Super Member
Yes the receiver has been recapped throughout. I have Nichicon filter caps. Where possible I've replaced the original Sprague caps with new Sprague manufacture (to be consistent with the sonic signature of the original design). In fact many of the exact same Sprague caps Marantz utilized in the late 60s are still being manufactured new today in the USA. For example the 30D.
I'll try out the UKLs you recommended to supplant the tantalums on the phono board.
airtime
Super Member
http://www.mouser.com/new/nichicon/Nichicon-Audio-Caps/For other positions I've had great results with the FG, KW,FW and even KT series
monkboughtlunch
Super Member
Interesting- not where I expected to see it. Not sure why they chose a tantalum for that location. Many caps would "work" there, but I've no idea what might be optimum. The experimenter in me wants to install a couple socket pins and try a few different types to see if there's any audible difference. For a couple bucks you could also just buy new modern tantalums to fit the spot.
Leestereo
Super Member
The C704/C712 capacitors are in the signal path: RC high-pass filter for the RIAA feedback. I suggest installing a bipolar type, e.g., Nichicon ES to minimize distortion. Also with the 22µF value and 470 resistor, the F3 cut-off is ~15Hz (somewhat high); you can increase to 47µF (F3=7.2Hz) or 100µF (F3=3.4Hz). Vintage Marantz phono stages often specified a tantalum capacitor in this position; presumably due to the low ESR of tantalum capacitors.
monkboughtlunch
Super Member
Thanks. Would this be the best choice for optimum sonic performance in the phono stage?
- UES1E220MEM (Nichicon 25volts 22uF)
Leestereo
Super Member
The F3 cut-off is the frequency at which the response is down 3dB. To maintain a flat response down to the lowest desired frequency, the target F3 should be 2 octaves below that desired frequency, e.g., for a flat response at 20Hz, the F3 of the high-pass filer should be 5Hz or lower.
monkboughtlunch
Super Member
Is it possible Marantz engineers used the 22uf to intentionally roll off the lower frequencies in the phono circuit to lessen turntable rumble?
Leestereo
Super Member
IMO, I don't think the roll-off is intentional per se; it may be due to the physical constraints of the available board space and it would be redundant since the Marantz 18 has a switchable "Lo Filter" on the front panel.
fernarias
Super Member
A warped record will produce a low frequency. I'm sure Marantz engineers were smart enough to know that the average consumer didn't want to hear it. I would keep it stock with 22uf and enjoy the genius of Marantz engineering (it's a nice sounding phono). The only change that makes a difference is replacing the noisy transistors with modern equivalents.
