Caps for a vintage Scott 222B

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 5719 times.

m1brown

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 54
Caps for a vintage Scott 222B
« on: 30 Jan 2007, 03:09 pm »
Hi -
I'm having a Scott 222B amp fixed up (EL84-based) and was hoping some folks could help shed light on which capacitors to use. I want to preserve the warmth but also have some detail since it will be driving Horns. Different Scott techs recommend different ones. Does anyone know the difference between Mallory PVC series or Cornell-Dubilier MET caps and surplus Russian caps like 0.1uF 500V PIO K42Y2 and  0.1uF 400V PIO K40Y9? Are there other caps to consider?
Thanks!
Mike

Scott F.

Re: Caps for a vintage Scott 222B
« Reply #1 on: 31 Jan 2007, 12:13 am »
Well, I can say from experience that the Mylar caps (Mallory PVC series) are quite dull sounding. I don't think you'll be very happy with them. The MET's are a metalized poly. I can't speak to the CD's but in general those style caps can vary widely in their sound. Some sound decent, some sound veiled.

Not to steer you to the cottage industry caps but if you are looking for a decent sounding cap that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, the AudioCap Theta does a decent job. So does the standard Sonicap. The Sonicap may be a bit forward depending on the horns you are using. Also, I've got an EL84 based amp (the JoLida 102b) that uses the Angela Instruments metalized poly (fastcap MKP) caps and they sound pretty darned good too.

Those are just a few different caps but we almost need to know more about your horns and source (CD player, upsampled? non-oversampled? SACD? etc) before we can make a specific recommendation. Also, what kind of horns are you using? If they are front loaded, be sure to tell me which horn and driver you've got because that will make a difference too.

Hot Glass Audio

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 3
    • Hot Glass Audio
Re: Caps for a vintage Scott 222B
« Reply #2 on: 31 Jan 2007, 07:25 am »
The 222-B was originally equipt with Pyramid IMP capacitors for interstage coupling applications. Pyramid IMP is a blend of Mylar and Paper dielectrics, known as "DiFilm". Difilm was a late 50's innovation which offered the reliability of Mylar, but with characteristics somewhere in between Mylar and Paper.

When rebuilding a Scott, you must take into consideration what type of capacitor dielectric was used (provided your goal is to retain the original sound characteristics).

The optimum replacement for the Pyramid IMP (or Ceracap) is the Mallory PVC series, or the Cornell-Dubilier WMF series (both Mylar film and foil types). The 222-B's circuitry is rather sensitive with regards to dielectric types, and one could say that the circuits were tuned around the limitations of Mylar.

The sensitivity increases with stage impedance. Here, the 222-B uses 12AX7's (high gain and high impedance dual triode), coupled to a 6BL8 paraphase phase inverter (inherently high impedance). Thus, substituting dielectrics in this particular model can vary the sound signature grossly. Polypropylene would be the worst choice, if harshness is to be avoided.

The statement above in reference to the Mallory PVC capacitors sounding overly "dull" is not a valid observation, as no two amplifier topologies will respond alike. Perhaps in some models the PVC series would sound dull, but not in the 222-B (or any Scott, for that matter).

For the 222-B, I'd suggest using only a Mylar replacement.

In reference to the capacitor types, below is a description:

-Mallory PVC Series - Mylar Film, comes in both 400 and 600V versions. The 400V version, is of course, less inductive and is ideal for H.H. Scott amplifiers.

-Cornell-Dubilier WMF Series - Another high quality Mylar Film capacitor that is THE direct replcement for Ceracaps, Black Beauties, and Pyramid IMP types.

-Cornell-Dubilier MET Series - Metallized Mylar construction. A very nice compromise to the two mentioned above.

-Russian K40Y9 - Mylar Film type in a hermetically sealed package. Comparable to the CD WMF series in sound. The 1KV version uses an oil impregnant as an insulator. These are high quality, good sounding, affordable capacitors.

The basic idea here is to preserve the original sound traits, as engineered by H.H. Scott. Essentially, the parts were chosen to deliver a flat frequency response within the audible range. Altering the construction of the parts changes certain circuit parameters (ESR, DF, DV/DT), and therefore, can alter the sound characteristics. Depending on the model, the characteristics may be subtle, or they may be severe. Whether the change is an improvement is in the "ear of the beholder".

The later Scott models (299-C, LK-72, 222-C, LK-48) used a different phase inverter topology (cathodyne), which is lower impedance. Here, using Polypropylene in place of Mylar yields subtle variations. The 12AX7 circuits remained the same, which means that using a Mylar capacitor will retain the original sound characteristics of the preamplifier stages.

Capacitors are not the only components that influence sound. Resistors also play a role. Like capacitors, resistors have certain electrical variables that influence sound (coefficient). Carbon film or carbon composition would work best for retaining the original sound, while metal oxide and similar types are typically of lower noise (but can sound overly "shrill").




Scott F.

Re: Caps for a vintage Scott 222B
« Reply #3 on: 31 Jan 2007, 12:26 pm »
Hi Ryan,

Welcome to AC!

Quote
I want to preserve the warmth but also have some detail since it will be driving Horns.

m1brown asked for caps that were a bit more revealing hence my leaning towards the cottage industry caps. To my ears the mylars are dull sounding, at least in the 299 circuit. Do they retain that original sound of the Scott's? Sure do but unfortunately the Scott's aren't the last word in resolution when you compare their sound to modern designs.

That makes me wonder about your previous statement about harshness. I wonder if the harshness you are hearing isn't from the Scott but from the detail that is brought forward from your source gear that is now revealed by the Scott that had better resolution?

I agree that changing caps to ones with a different ESR (etc) will change the characteristics of the original design, I've not experienced any negative effects sonically with the changes I've made to my 299 but that may well be because of your explanation that the later models had a different phase inverter topology. On the cottage industry side, I've tried AuriCaps and Hovlands in the coupling cap positions. In both cases I've gotten better resolution over the original caps. Somewhere down the road I'll likely swap out the Hovlands for Sonicaps and maybe add a bypass to some of them. I expect to gain even more resolution when I make that change also.

Please don't read what I'm saying as a challenge. I understand and agree that changing the original caps with something that doesn't have the exact same electrical characteristics will effect the overall performance of the amps. The real issue here is one of subjectivity. When you change the caps for something like a metalized poly or some other dielectric, will you enjoy the sound?