Free Shipping on All Orders 1-866-764-1801

Vist our Online Store
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1

    Member Sales Rating: (2)

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    529

    Default Capacitor help, please.....

    I'm just about to order all the new parts for the upgrades to the SDA-1C's. I realize that many of these questions have been posted before, but, to be honest, sometimes the search function fails me. Can the experts please educate me a little....

    1. There are capacitors on the wiring diagram labeled "electrolytic, Mylar, and Silver dipped mica." Can I just replace ALL of these with film-type caps of the same uf (or pf, as applicable) value?

    2. So far, the caps I've found online (Solens, Sonicaps, etc.) have different voltage values than the original ones on the crossover board, and occasionally slightly different capacitance values. Is there any harm in using caps of different voltages, and within a very close tolerance of the original capacitance? For example, one of the original caps is a 4.4 uf Mylar 100V. Can I replace it with a Sonicap 4.3uf 200V without harm, or a Solen 4.3uf 400V PB cap?

    3. The original resistors are all rated at 5W. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to replacing them with 12W resistors (from Mills)?

    4. Can I opt NOT to use the 750pf bypass cap in the tweeter circuit? If so, what might be the predicted results?

    I thank you all for your help; the forum has been tremendous in getting some of my questions answered.

  2. #2

    Member Sales Rating: (47)

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sufficiently Breathless
    Posts
    11,095

    Default

    Many people here have experienced very good results with sonicaps and mills 12 watt resistors,that is what I have in my 1C's,,be sure to replace the polyswwitches,or bypass them if you a prudent with the volume control. As for the silver mica, many have chosen to either bypass it,or replace it with a .1 uf cap,,I think that the latest opinions from those far well versed than I have chosen to bypass the SM,as the .1 uf cap seems to add some "coloration". I'm sure that others will chime in. Good luck,,have fun and enjoy.
    JC approves....he told me so. (F-1 nut)

  3. #3
    Banned
    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    577

    Default

    Here is what I would do.
    Replace the old electrolytic caps with electrolytic, preferably from the same manufacturer.
    Metalized Poly caps have different ESR/inductance then electrolytic, and will change the characteristics of the crossover, besides being big and relatively expensive.
    I do not think they are necessary, and neither did Polk.
    If they are "so bad", why are we all buying OLD Polk speakers ?
    As for the Mylar cap on the tweeter, that is where I would lavish the money.
    I have had great luck with the British Clarity Caps, but several here like the Solens and Sonicaps too.
    The Mills are a much better resistor, use them.
    As for the tweeter cap bypass, I would not worry about it.
    Yes, you can use higher voltage rating caps, and .1 mfd ain't gonna matter.
    Every forum has it's "idea's" about the best way to do it.
    By all means, read, and decide what is best for you ?
    Here is how we re did our Spica's http://www.spicaspeakers.com/repair/spica-crossover.htm
    Last edited by ka7niq; 10-04-2007 at 08:08 PM.

  4. #4

    Member Sales Rating: (2)

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    529

    Default

    George,
    Yep, the new polyswitches are on the way from Polk.

    ka7niq,
    I was looking at those ClarityCaps. Madisound carries them, and they have a 39uf cap that could probably replace the 2 x 20uf original paralleled caps. Going with the Solens or Sonicaps, I think I'd still have to use 2 x 20uf paralled caps to get the 40uf in the Dimensional array circuit.

    Thanks, guys....

  5. #5

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ka7niq View Post
    Here is what I would do.
    Replace the old electrolytic caps with electrolytic, preferably from the same manufacturer. Metalized Poly caps have different ESR/inductance then electrolytic, and will change the characteristics of the crossover, besides being big and relatively expensive.
    Film dielectrics are generally better at preserving signal integrity than electrolytics. Polk did not use them extensively because of cost and vendor supply issues.


    Quote Originally Posted by ka7niq View Post
    I do not think they [electrolytic capacitors] are necessary, and neither did Polk.
    This is absolutely not true. When I contacted Polk's engineering department about recommended modifications, replacing the electrolytic capacitors with polypropylene capacitors was tops on the list. I was specifically cautioned against using teflon and polystyrene capacitors because they were "too fast" and would cause harshness and hardness in the high frequencies.

    Quote Originally Posted by ka7niq View Post
    If they [electrolytic capacitors] are "so bad", why are we all buying OLD Polk speakers ?
    It is not a matter of the electrolytics being bad, it is a matter of taking a great speaker design and optimizing it with better parts. Modified SDA's come much closer to realizing the performance potential inherent in their design.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  6. #6

    Member Sales Rating: (4)

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central AR
    Posts
    1,620

    Default

    Again, it all gets back to what the manufacturers used that they could order in great (guaranteed) quantities to build for the masses. Polk wasn't building a $5K to $50K speaker line...they were building for the masses and using parts that could trickle downstream and cover other aspects of what they were building...SDA, RTA, Monitor.

    Here's the thread on when I rebuilt my 1C's with the Solens and Mills (5W) resistors.
    Richard? Who's your favorite Little Rascal? Alfalfa? Or is it........................Spanky?................. ................Sinner.

  7. #7

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff727 View Post
    I'm just about to order all the new parts for the upgrades to the SDA-1C's. I realize that many of these questions have been posted before, but, to be honest, sometimes the search function fails me. Can the experts please educate me a little....
    The search function is your friend. It can be frustrating having to sift through old posts, but also very rewarding. I think it would be profitable to read through some of the modification posts regarding parts selection, silver mica bypass capacitors, and polyswitches.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff727 View Post
    1. There are capacitors on the wiring diagram labeled "electrolytic, Mylar, and Silver dipped mica." Can I just replace ALL of these with film-type caps of the same uf (or pf, as applicable) value?
    Yes. Absolutely.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff727 View Post
    2. So far, the caps I've found online (Solens, Sonicaps, etc.) have different voltage values than the original ones on the crossover board, and occasionally slightly different capacitance values. Is there any harm in using caps of different voltages, and within a very close tolerance of the original capacitance? For example, one of the original caps is a 4.4 uf Mylar 100V. Can I replace it with a Sonicap 4.3uf 200V without harm, or a Solen 4.3uf 400V PB cap?
    The stock capacitors have a tolerance of +/- 10%. This means that the value of a 4.4 uf capacitor can range from 3.96 uf to 4.84 uf. As long as you are within the tolerance range you will be ok. You can go up in voltage rating but you should not replace a part with one of lesser voltage rating.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff727 View Post
    3. The original resistors are all rated at 5W. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to replacing them with 12W resistors (from Mills)?
    I heard no audible difference between the 5W and 12W Mills resistors. I chose the 12 watt resistors because they are more robust parts.

    Quote Originally Posted by geoff727 View Post
    4. Can I opt NOT to use the 750pf bypass cap in the tweeter circuit? If so, what might be the predicted results?
    The 750 pf silver mica capacitor is there to improve the transient response of the mylar capacitor it bypasses. It is not needed if you are going to use high quality polypropylene capacitors. In the original design, a better choice would have been a high quality polypropylene capacitor, but for reasons of cost and inadequate supply, the mylar was chosen. If you use the 750 pf silver mica with a polypropylene film cap, you may hear some sound artifacts (increased "air" or brightness) added to the sound.

    The polyswitches diminish high frequency detail, although the newer ones are not as bad as the original ones. One of the SDA models, the 3.1TL, did not even include them. I (and others) have bypassed them or removed them from the crossover circuit.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  8. #8

    Member Sales Rating: (2)

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    529

    Default

    avguytx,
    Thanks, great thread! Seeing your pictures with the parts you used helps tremendously.

    Ray,
    Thanks for the great info...again! I know, the search function is my friend. I just wish it liked ME better! However, I have found some great stuff, even though I'm not very skilled at looking for it.

    Well, I think I'm getting pretty close to doing this, thanks to all the great information, help, and replies I've received. It's definitely been a learning experience (with much more to come). For the actual soldering, a friend of mine is going to assist me- he's the type of guy who could build you a stainless steel coffee pot that would keep your coffee hot to within a tenth of a degree of your preferred warmth, and last you for 2 or 3 hundred years. A real workmanship pro.

  9. #9

    Member Sales Rating: (16)

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In A Van Down By The River
    Posts
    21,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ka7niq View Post
    Here is what I would do.
    Replace the old electrolytic caps with electrolytic, preferably from the same manufacturer.
    Metalized Poly caps have different ESR/inductance then electrolytic, and will change the characteristics of the crossover, besides being big and relatively expensive.
    I do not think they are necessary, and neither did Polk.
    If they are "so bad", why are we all buying OLD Polk speakers ?
    As for the Mylar cap on the tweeter, that is where I would lavish the money.
    I have had great luck with the British Clarity Caps, but several here like the Solens and Sonicaps too.
    The Mills are a much better resistor, use them.
    As for the tweeter cap bypass, I would not worry about it.
    Yes, you can use higher voltage rating caps, and .1 mfd ain't gonna matter.
    Every forum has it's "idea's" about the best way to do it.
    By all means, read, and decide what is best for you ?
    Here is how we re did our Spica's http://www.spicaspeakers.com/repair/spica-crossover.htm
    Or, he could follow the tried and true method of several on here and use SOLENS or SONICAPS. Do not replace with Electrolytics if you are going to take the time and put in the effort do it the way all those before you including Polks engineering dept. suggests. DarqueKnight is the most knowledgeable when it comes to SDA's and I would certainly follow his advice before ka7niq. Although his advise might be well intended it's probably not the best since DK has much more real experience upgrading/updating SDA's.

    H9
    "Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment. Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not".--Nelson Pass

    Pass Aleph 30; Eastern Electric Mini Max; Adcom GDA600; MIT S3/Z Pc; SDA 1C; Squeezebox; Tubes add soul!

  10. #10

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Heidenheimer, TX
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Darqueknight,

    I'm glad you mentioned the possibility of eliminating polyswitches. I've just replaced mine. My question for you is this, and maybe you can help me understand a bit. The polyswitch is a protective device to guard the tweeters against injudicious damage. Realistically, how much more performance, if you had to make an educated guess, could be safely wrung from the tweeters? I replaced them with the ones sent kindly by Polk, and it certainly imrpoved things, but I've been doing some research, and here are some specs for the ones in the SDA-SRS copied from Ebay, where one seller stocks a whole range of them:

    RDE090A RUE090 Resettable Fuse POLYSWITCH
    40 Amp
    30V
    .9A Hold Current
    1.8 Amp Trip Current
    Radial Lead

    Now here's my question, if you'll humor me: Obviously, this part places a limit on the tweeters. My question is "how limiting is it?" I ask because the same seller on Ebay has these:

    RBE110A RUE110 Resettable Fuse POLYSWITCH
    Resettable Fuse
    40 Amp
    30V
    1.1 Amp Hold Current
    2.2 Amp Trip Current
    Radial Lead

    This, to me, represents a very moderate increase in Hold and Trip current specs. Or is it a whole lot more significant than it looks to me? This should allow me to push just slightly more through the tweeters if I want to, but still provide me some protection, right? Or are these too high, such that I'm likely to fall outside the range of safe operation for the tweeters, and thus cook them?

    You see, I like the idea of protection, if for no other reason than I have a teenager who might get to be a bit injudicious with the volume knob if her Mom and I were out to dinner. Thing is, the protection afforded by the stock part may be 'stifling' a bit,as you indicate. I'm wondering if I can overcome SOME of this and still maintain SOME protection.

    Thanks!

    Mark

  11. #11

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,187

    Default

    Unfortunately, specs can not tell you how something sounds. You will have to either:

    1. Find someone who has done a comparison of various polyswitches in SDA crossover circuits...or

    2. Do the comparison yourself.

    I will tell you that I was surprised at the positive effect of removing the old polyswitches from a pair of SDA 1B's. The new polyswitches are better than the old ones, but the sonic benefit of removing them is still very audible.

    To specifically answer your question:

    Quote Originally Posted by markamerica View Post
    Obviously, this part places a limit on the tweeters. My question is "how limiting is it?"
    The polyswitches are limiting to the point where I can not tolerate them. If you are looking for a numerical assessment of the amount of high frequency information loss (e.g. 5%, 10%, etc.), I hesitate to make such a blanket statement because the amount of apparent loss will differ depending on your associated equipment and cables.

    You can easily approximate the amount of polyswitch "filtering" in your speakers, in your system, by just listening after soldering a short length of wire across the polyswitch terminals.

    We would appreciate you reporting your findings to us.
    Last edited by DarqueKnight; 10-06-2007 at 02:47 PM.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  12. #12

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Heidenheimer, TX
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Thanks Darqueknight!

    I will indeed report what I find. I decided that I would try this. (The RBE110A's)

    I'll also try it w/o polyswitches. IT IS getting intolerable. My old Soundcraftsmen amps, A5002's(I'm biamped), are only moderately tested, and even with the new 090A's in place, the tweeters are tripping before I get near what I think they should do. Don't get me wrong, they get loud, but I know they can get substantially louder.

    I'm wondering if I could rig a switch in to the speaker down near the interconnect cable, so that under normal circumstances, the polyswitches would be "in" (like whenever I am not around, and unbeknownst to other inhabitants) and I could manually switch them "out", thereby bypassing them when I want to get loud(er).

    Anybody here ever played with that? If so, any suggestions? I would think it should be a simple matter.

    So I guess I will test the following:
    090A's
    110A's
    W/O polyswitch altogether
    w/bypass switch

    Anything else anybody would like me to check out while I'm at it?

    I've got some 110As on the way, and for anybody who needs them, contact me via PM. I've got plenty of 050As, 070As, and 090As.

    Mark

  13. #13

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,187

    Default

    The switch is an interesting idea. Just make sure you use an audio grade switch that does not degrade the signal.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  14. #14

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Heidenheimer, TX
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Darqueknight,

    You know, I was just thinking about that, and it dawned on me that this may be one of the problems with the polyswitches generally. All the signal to the tweeters has to pass through those tiny little conductors... I also notice, by the way, that the tweeter performance is much better from cold start. Once they warm up a bit, it seems the polyswitches get warm pretty quickly, and don't dissipate heat very quickly/well. I realize that this is the nature of the polyswitches, and in fact part of the reason they're used at all, but from my point of view, I'm stuffing a lot of wattage through a pretty tiny conductor at the polyswitch. It's bound to build up a ton of heat, which seems to me to cause the sustainable tweeter performance to be significantly lower than it ought be.

    So I got curious. I looked at the original polyswitches, and notice the total length of the conductors was right around 7/8 of an inch. When I replaced them, I cut them to the same length, and installed them exactly as had been the originals. So I went from cold start, put on a song that would push the HF a bit, and cranked up about as high as I figured I could go, short of tripping the PSs, based on earlier testing. I timed it, and it took 41 seconds before, in almost precise unison, L+R HF went away.

    So I shut down, and pulled the crossovers out, took the PSs off, shortened the conductors by 3/8 of an inch. This brought the body of the PSs down to within around 1/4 inch of the PCB. After reinstalling everything, and buttoning back up, I did test round number 2. I played exactly the same song, at precisely the same level, and this time, it took 51 seconds before they tripped. Now this isn't some massive gain at that volume level, and now I wish I had farted around more to see what was sustainable at with the longer conductor length, but my guess, and it's a guess here, is that I gained a bit in sustainable HF volumes by shortening the conductors.

    So this makes me wonder about the conductors, because if they're a bottleneck by themselves, it's going to cause the polyswitches to trip more rapidly. Seems that way.

    Of course, my testing was far from scientifically precise, but the song was the same and the volume was the same, and no other adjustments were made between the two tests. Which leads me to a question, since I'm far from being an electrical engineer, but I'm guessing that if you're not, you've spent a lot of time playing with these things.

    Okay, so let's ask this question. The specs for the 090As, which are the OEM value polyswitches, call for a hold of .9a and a trip of 1.8a. Now,if I'm not mistaken, if I ran a pair of polyswitches in parallel, both at half of those values, say .45a(hold current) and .9a(trip), in theory, I wouldn't change the overall protection, since the pair in parallel would still attain the same value before tripping, right? But then, the thing that might be different is the conductors, since essentially, I have twice the 'pipe', I ought to get less resistance just off the conductors. Right?

    So here's what I'm thinking of doing next, while I wait for the 110As to arrive: I've got a bunch of 050As, with the specs .5a(hold) and 1a(trip). Unless I'm way off and forgetting something, if I paired them up, I'd have theoretical total values across the pairings of 1a(hold) and 2a(trip). This represents a very small change from stock, but again, I'm doubling the available conductor cross-section connecting the switches to the PCB. In fact, what I may do is apply this change on one side only, say the Right channel, and see what difference it makes in terms of tripping. The two still tripped in virtually syncrhonous fashion after shortening them, just as they had in the first test. They were just delayed in doing so by around 10 seconds. If I'd been smart, I suppose, I would have left one long, and only shortened one. (Duh. I realize this NOW, of all things.)

    As for audio grade switches, for the bypass idea, do you have any suggestions?

    Thanks!

    Mark

  15. #15

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Heidenheimer, TX
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Darqueknight,

    One more thing... I just went back and was looking at the schematics for my 2Bs, and I noticed that on the latest drawing, dated July of 89(the earlier two being 3/87 and 10/87 respectively,) the 050A polyswitch was replaced by the 090A.

    now the reason I got to thinking about this is simple: The SRSs have 4 tweeters. The 2B has a single tweeter.

    I was also rethinking my parallel idea because while the trip and hold amp changes by doubling up would be appropriate, I am concerned when I look at the ratings for the polyswitches again:

    The 090A:
    40 Amp
    30V
    .9A Hold Current
    1.8 Amp Trip Current
    Radial Lead

    The 050A:

    40 Amp
    72V
    .5A Hold Current
    1 Amp Trip Current
    Radial Lead

    First, the voltage difference leapt off the page at me. Then, too, the 40amps sunk in. Ignoring the voltage difference, momentarily, if I'm doubling the trip rating by running these in parallel, aren't I also doubling the 40amp to 80? I realize that in parallel, voltage won't change, but the amps will add together, right? So I may have to rethink this whole parallel notion.

    But still, I wonder about the substitution of the 090 for the 050 on the 2Bs. I studied the two schematics closely, and found no other difference. Just the polyswitches. So again, I come back to this question, and maybe you can put it into perspective for me. (I may be missing something stunningly obvious)

    The SRSs have 4 tweeters each. The 2Bs a single tweeter each. They're SL-2000s on both. Why would they use the identical polyswitch? Am I missing something fundamental here?

    Mark

  16. #16

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markamerica View Post
    Which leads me to a question, since I'm far from being an electrical engineer, but I'm guessing that if you're not, you've spent a lot of time playing with these things.
    I am an electrical engineer, but I have not spent a lot of time playing with polyswitches. After being advised that they had a detrimental sonic effect, I listened with them out of the circuit and could not go back to using them. I spent some time listening to the new polyswitches earlier this year, but that was only because the person who bought my SDA 1C's wanted the polyswitches reinstalled.

    While you are doing your polyswitch experiments, I think you should shoot an email to Polk's engineering department via customer service and let them know what you are up to. They may know of some hidden pitfalls of the non-standard polyswitch configurations you are considering.

    You should also ask if the newer polyswitches get slightly more resistive and the trip threshold moves slightly lower each time they are tripped. This was a problem with the old ones and is something to consider if your testing causes the polyswitches to be tripped a number of times. The old polyswitches had a finite number of times they could be tripped, afterwhich they would not reset. I do not know what that number was and it was probably variable and dependent on the amount of stress that each incident put on the device.

    If you parallel two identical polyswitches, each will see half the current presented to the tweeters. This is not good because the protection threshold is significantly lowered. For example, if a 2 amp load is presented to a single 1.8 amp polyswitch, the polyswitch will trip. If you put two 1.8 amp polyswitches in parallel and present the same 2 amp load, each polyswitch will see 1 amp and will let it pass on to the tweeters, since 1 amp is far below the 1.8 amp trip threshold for each polyswitch.

    Quote Originally Posted by markamerica View Post
    The SRSs have 4 tweeters each. The 2Bs a single tweeter each. They're SL-2000s on both. Why would they use the identical polyswitch? Am I missing something fundamental here?
    The polyswitch acts as a "gatekeeper" to keep potentially lethal current out of the tweeter circuit. Whether there are 1 or 40 tweeters behind the gate is of no consequence. The threshold is set below what it would take to damage one tweeter. The principle is the same as implementing a security gate for an apartment complex. Whether there is 1 tenant or 400, the goal is to stop unauthorized access at the gate. In multi-tweeter SDA systems, one tweeter is "dominant" for most of the high frequency range and the dominant tweeter will take most of the current in most overload situations. That is why often only one tweeter will blow in a multi-tweeter SDA system.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  17. #17

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markamerica View Post
    As for audio grade switches, for the bypass idea, do you have any suggestions?
    I can't recommend anything offhand. I hope some of the other forum members can chime in. You might want to pose this question to the folks at www.diycable.com and www.soniccraft.com. These are both honest,reputable, and knowledgeable DIY companies that may be able to give you good advice on a switch for this application. I have done business with both companies.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  18. #18

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Heidenheimer, TX
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Darqueknight,

    Thanks a bunch! Lots of good info there.

    Lots to consider. I was thinking way wrong, so you probably just saved me oodles of trouble.

    Mark

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. popped Capacitor
    By Hirobo in forum Troubleshooting
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-06-2007, 08:40 AM
  2. SDA-2B Capacitor Upgrades
    By TBTCarl in forum Vintage Speakers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-16-2006, 09:29 PM
  3. capacitor?
    By beavis240 in forum Car Audio & Electronics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10-21-2004, 04:57 AM
  4. Capacitor
    By hobopenguin in forum Car Audio & Electronics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-08-2001, 02:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts