Perfed my 1st ts-808

[jimbob]

To my suprise it wasnt as bad as i thought it might be. SO now its time to move on to the next challenge. I cant say its exactly a ts-808 as some of the value were off a little since i was low or out of some parts. But i really didnt notice hardly if any difference compared to my other GGG ts-808. I used a 470k instead of the 510k, 195 ohms instead of 220, .022 instd of .02, 1uf 16v istd of 1uF  50 volt non-polar.

[brett]

Hi.

1uf 16v istd of 1uF 50 volt non-polar

You used an electrolytic?  I'd be surprised if a regular electro would sound good.  The 1uFs in a TS808 have little/no potential across them.  

cheers

[aron]

I have found electros to sound perfectly fine many times. In fact, many older pedals also had the dreaded ceramics all over them and they still sounded good.

I guess it depends on the context. I definitely use electrolytics and I prefer them in the places I use them. Film is not always an upgrade (at least to me).

[brett]

Whoops!  I didn't explain myself.  Yeah, I think electrolytics are probably ok for lots of applications, too.  Pedals and amps are full of them, so they can'r be that bad.  BUT they usually have an electrical potential across them.  I may have this wrong, but don't they need the potential to make their internal film behave itself and provide the right amount of capacitance?  In the TS808 there's no potential difference between the first and second stages (it all at Vb), which are coupled by the 1uF.  That's presumably why a NP cap is specified there.  

I'll do a quick scan of the net and get back...

[bwanasonic]

I for one, would like a clearer understanding of "When Electrolytics Don't Suck" and "When Ceramic Caps Happen to Good Pedals". I have both a *vintage* DOD 201 and a reissue. Among the differences is the vintage model uses ceramics almost exclusively. It sounds quite nice. So much for *audiophile* logic as applied to pedals. I am in the planning stages of a TS type build, and am going with 1uf NP film caps for coupling stages.

Kerry M

[brett]

Hi.

Among the differences is the vintage model uses ceramics almost exclusively. It sounds quite nice.

Yeah, I'm not surprised.  The audiophiles can pick up minute amounts of high frequency fizzy distortion with ceramic caps, but our guitar amps may not even reproduce frequencies that high.  And frankly, at 44 years of age, my ears are not that great.

Concerning electrolytics, some web sites refer to non-polar (NP) and bi-polar (BP) caps as the same thing, as suitable where no potential difference occurs.  I would have theought that a BP required a difference, but it could be in either direction.    Linguistically, bipolar to me implies one pole or the other, not none.  ??

[casey]

I for one, would like a clearer understanding of "When Electrolytics Don't Suck" and "When Ceramic Caps Happen to Good Pedals". I have both a *vintage* DOD 201 and a reissue. Among the differences is the vintage model uses ceramics almost exclusively. It sounds quite nice. So much for *audiophile* logic as applied to pedals. I am in the planning stages of a TS type build, and am going with 1uf NP film caps for coupling stages.

Kerry M

on orman's site, he has some great articles about this subject.
he says that there is no audible difference with electrolytics....

[Brian Marshall]

with electrolytics you can have linearity issues if there is not voltage difference, but if i remember right the 1uf's in the 808 are non polar electrolytics.... which if i remember right still have some linearity issues.

high end hiss shouldnt be the problem.... you will be more likely to end up with reliability problems.  electrolyitic caps like to get charged and discharged it keeps them from deteriorating.  sort of like a rechargable battery that you forget to charge for a long time...  it wont charge anymore.  Since there is no potential the cap will never charge.  i doubt the 1/2 volt swing from you guitar signal will do it.  dont worry too much, it usually takes a few years for this to happen.