2205 cap?

Patrick620

Audio Enthusiast
I talked to a tech at an authorized Mac service center about looking at my 2205 with a bad channel. We got to talking about the main filter caps (39000uf 50v each) and he said that in order to keep the caps the same size as the originals, he puts in as high as 80000uf and higher voltage. I mentioned the current inrush that this may cause and he said thats not a problem considering the extra headroom and...something else I dont remember. Does this sound correct?
 
Register to hide this ad
There are filter caps available that are the same size as the original caps and much closer to the original value. Check with McIntosh or at Mouser.

Murray
 
There are filter caps available that are the same size as the original caps and much closer to the original value. Check with McIntosh or at Mouser.

Murray

I would feel more comfortable with being closer to the original value, but I guess my question is this a "mod" that will have desirable effects or a bad idea overall?
 
Don't know if it would hurt or add anything to the operation of the amp. Unless you know there is something wrong with the caps, I would leave the originals in place. Filter caps don't have anything to do with the loss of one channel as they provide juice to both channels; one cap is negative and the other positive.

Murray
 
Don't know if it would hurt or add anything to the operation of the amp. Unless you know there is something wrong with the caps, I would leave the originals in place. Filter caps don't have anything to do with the loss of one channel as they provide juice to both channels; one cap is negative and the other positive.

Murray
I agree, Murray. I was just considering future upgrades (if I get the thing running that is) ;)
 
Cool. You're not too far from AK member Echowars (KC) who could repair your amp or Terry in Knoxville, the resident Mc expert.

Murray
 
I wonder if he is trying to compensate for the fact that older electrolytics tended to be somewhat higher in measured value than the stated capacitance and modern electrolytics tend to measure much closer to the stated capacitance.

William
 
High quality new electrolytic caps are considerably better than older caps. Generally speaking, it does no harm to go up by 50% in cap value for power supply filter caps and 25% in voltage. Am guessing the tech in question is trying to get something close in physical dimension to the original. As part of the better caps of today is the considerable reduction in the physical size for the same rating. And, why would there be any more 'in-rush' of current with a larger cap? Nothing in the circuit changed other than a new cap, so doubt that there would be any more current on start-up. Technology marches on (though a recapped old McIntosh is a wonderful thing).
 
I would NOT go to a supersize cap for that amp. There are numerous good choices at Digikey, Mouser, and Newark that range from 39,000µf to 58,000µf.
 
I would NOT go to a supersize cap for that amp. There are numerous good choices at Digikey, Mouser, and Newark that range from 39,000µf to 58,000µf.

Thanks, EW. I wouldnt want my amp to end up like your friends TT. The person that told me that was the person I asked you about ;)
 
Hi Everyone. I felt that it was necessary for me to comment on this thread. Sometime back James Bongiorno and I had a conversation about the concept of increasing the main filter capacitors, in analog power supplies. He said that there are significant concerns about in-rush current when the value of the capacitor is increased significantly. More specifically this current may have a negative effect on the silicon rectifiers and the power transformer, if the design parameters are exceeded. Not being an engineer I can't comment on the specific parameters involved, but would certainly assume that JB 's information was accurate. He further indicated that one should never exceed changing the value more than 1.414 times, the original value, unless the specifications of all of the devices that would be affected by the increase of in-rush current.

In actuality, the factory replacements for these capacitors, McIntosh Part Number 066-401-00, are 30,000 uf @ 100 vDC. I did inquire of the factory, and spoke to a person in the engineering department about the decrease in value. I was advised that the change in value made insignificant change in the amplifiers using the previous value. He also indicated that McIntosh does not approve of increasing this value for the same rationale that JB stated.

As an Authorized McIntosh Service and Restoration facility I don't advocate making any significant changes. Do so at your own risk as it is verboten by the factory.

Hope this sheds a bit of additional information on this subject.

Mark
Absolute Sound Labs
 
I dunno why Mac wants to sell a 100V cap when there are lots of caps at a much more appropriate voltages available.

RE: Capacitance. When I can, I get a cap as close to the stock value as possible, but a small increase of 25% or so should not be a big problem with units using an 'old-fashioned' E/I core transformer, which will limit charging currents through its own winding losses. But I wouldn't be slapping in any 80,000µf caps.

Mouser sells a 41,000µf 50V Vishay/Sprague 36DX measuring 3" x 4.125" (#75-36DX413G050DC2A) that should be the perfect replacement if the stock cap is 3" diameter as I believe it is.
 
RE: Capacitance. When I can, I get a cap as close to the stock value as possible, but a small increase of 25% or so should not be a big problem with units using an 'old-fashioned' E/I core transformer, which will limit charging currents through its own winding losses. But I wouldn't be slapping in any 80,000µf caps.

Even with my lesser abilities, it seemed unwise.

Mouser sells a 41,000µf 50V Vishay/Sprague 36DX measuring 3" x 4.125" (#75-36DX413G050DC2A) that should be the perfect replacement if the stock cap is 3" diameter as I believe it is.
Yes, EW, it is 3" x 4.10"
 
Check this auction on ebay; 200308340675. It is for two Mallory 56,000uf, 50V computer grade capacitors. They are brand new with a 2004 date code. I have no connection to this seller but bought one of these sets for my MC2200 about six months ago. They are a perfect fit; correct stud size and spacing, same diameter but that they have a blue plastic coating and are about 0.75" shorter that the originals. You could probably swap your old ones out in 15 minutes. They work perfectly for me and look VERY nice. They are a good deal too at about $28 each. I am very happy with mine.
John Lovda
 
Last edited:
In response to EchoWars, I agree that the safest way is to replace the component with an exact value or one that might be slightly above the value. It should be noted that this method, changing the value, isn't recommended for resistors, disk caps or components in the RF, IF or multiplex circuitry. Changes in the audio path might result in changes to the sonic soundstage as well. The new replacement is not the original part, but a part used in several models. Because the rail voltage was higher on some models the replacement rating was made higher to accommodate a universal replacement. For example, in the 2105 the original caps, made by either Mallory (Blue) or GE (Silver) were rated 40 vDC, maximum Surge 50 vDC. The rails were +/- 35 vDC. In the 2205 the rails are +/- 42 vDC. In the latter case the SOR is only 8 volts less that then normal, maximum operating range of the cap. This doesn't leave much room for operating headroom.

So, in an effort to minimize stocking of several different devices the engineers opted for only one, which has a higher operating voltage. Therefore they can use it for several units. While I am not a design engineer, I question reducing the value simply to accommodate less parts inventory. However, in my years in business and National Service Manager for KLH, I learned that "Engineers Know Best". IMHO, Perhaps they should visit the real world sometime.
 
Changes in the audio path might result in changes to the sonic soundstage as well. The new replacement is not the original part, but a part used in several models. Because the rail voltage was higher on some models the replacement rating was made higher to accommodate a universal replacement. For example, in the 2105 the original caps, made by either Mallory (Blue) or GE (Silver) were rated 40 vDC, maximum Surge 50 vDC. The rails were +/- 35 vDC. In the 2205 the rails are +/- 42 vDC. In the latter case the SOR is only 8 volts less that then normal, maximum operating range of the cap. This doesn't leave much room for operating headroom.

It may be heresy on this wedsite but I have never been able to figure out words like "soundstage." I believe it's all psychology and the "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome for high end audio that is theoretically overdesigned. Using higher capacitance parts in the signal path essentually allows lower frequencies to pass. The downside is that the caps take longer to charge up on turn-on and could cause pots to create static or noise if rotated before the charging is complete and the DC voltages come to equilibrium. Most electrolytic caps, even Nichicon Muse have very wide capacitance tolerances, sometimes +/- 25% or more. I am not an electro-chemist but the one thing I have never been able to find out is when is a voltage rating too high for the application. If you put a cap rated at 100v in a circuit that normally would only have 5-10v across it, how does that effect capacitance and performance. The dielectric chemicals need a certain voltage differential to "form" properly.

The high quality 50v computer grade electrolytic caps used to filter the main power supply usually have peak or surge ratings of about 65v so voltage spike are not a problem. Of all the capacitors I have replaced in older Mac SS amps, the big filter caps have seemed to be the least problematic (for me, anyway).

John L.
 
Last edited:
It may be heresy on this wedsite but I have never been able to figure out words like "soundstage." I believe it's all psychology and the "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome for high end audio that is theoretically overdesigned. John L.
Changes in soundstage width and depth can easily be heard with different pieces of gear. At least in any decent system I've owned. Front-to-back and side-to-side changes have been both subtle and dramatic by the introduction of one piece of gear or another into my systems. Just like listening to the same group in two different venues.

Good catch on those Mallory caps. As they are not in the audio circuit directly, should only have an effect on lower freq when playing them loudly enough to need some of that additional headroom that EW & MarkW mention.
 
I dunno why Mac wants to sell a 100V cap when there are lots of caps at a much more appropriate voltages available.

RE: Capacitance. When I can, I get a cap as close to the stock value as possible, but a small increase of 25% or so should not be a big problem with units using an 'old-fashioned' E/I core transformer, which will limit charging currents through its own winding losses. But I wouldn't be slapping in any 80,000µf caps.

Mouser sells a 41,000µf 50V Vishay/Sprague 36DX measuring 3" x 4.125" (#75-36DX413G050DC2A) that should be the perfect replacement if the stock cap is 3" diameter as I believe it is.

I'm in the market for replacement power supply caps for the MC 2205. One of the McIntosh guys says to replace them, and another Mc guys says they're ok. Terry says that unless the caps are running hot or leaking, then they are fine and the only real test is power output with both channels operating.

So I'm on the fence with ordering a new pair form Mouser: Vishay 36DX413G050DC2A 41000 uF 50V Capacitor

The original ones are in GREAT shape.

Rear cap:

MC2205_Love_rear_cap.jpg



Front cap:

MC2205_Love_front_cap.jpg



So what do you think?

I'd rather keep it stock if at all possible.


-Gregory
 
Last edited:
Check this auction on ebay; 200308340675. It is for two Mallory 56,000uf, 50V computer grade capacitors. They are brand new with a 2004 date code. I have no connection to this seller but bought one of these sets for my MC2200 about six months ago. They are a perfect fit; correct stud size and spacing, same diameter but that they have a blue plastic coating and are about 0.75" shorter that the originals. You could probably swap your old ones out in 15 minutes. They work perfectly for me and look VERY nice. They are a good deal too at about $28 each. I am very happy with mine.


John.. I still regret trading in that MC 2200. It was one solid and powerful unit!!

attachment.php



-Gregory
 
Back
Top Bottom