Bottlehead Forum
General Category => Technical topics => Topic started by: Deke609 on January 13, 2019, 05:07:13 AM
-
There are a number of references to Grainger's method on this forum, but the links are broken.
Here is a working link to Grainger's post on the now-archived Audio Asylum Bottlehead forum: https://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=bottlehead&n=134386&highlight=fast+break+in&r=&search_url=/cgi/search.mpl (https://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=bottlehead&n=134386&highlight=fast+break+in&r=&search_url=/cgi/search.mpl)
Does anyone know whether multiple caps can be broken in at the same time using Grainger's method by putting them in either parallel or series?
Edit: fixed and tested the wonky link - it should now work.
cheers,
Derek
-
Don't remember the specifics of Grainger's method. I insert 1 in each channel of the + speaker line of the garage stereo, tune to static (?) and let it play for 3-4 days.
-
What about breaking in multiple caps at the same time on the same line? What would be better for break-in, in series or in parallel?
I'd like to experiment with different values of output caps by building a switchbox of different values of already broken in caps for quick comparisons.
-
or in parallel?
Amplifiers that aren't unconditionally stable won't be very excited about having a cap connected across the speaker terminals.
Any of the Bottlehead tube power amps won't mind this though.
-
Thanks PB. So, do think in parallel is better than in series for break-in? Or did you simply mean to highlight the potential risks of going parallel with other amps?
-
Highlighting the potential risks.
-
Since nobody knows for sure how break-in works for caps, the only way to tell whether series or parallel is better would be to do the experiment. I am not aware of any documented results from such an experiment.
That said, I will speculate that you need AC current, the more the merrier, so I'd put them in parallel so each cap sees the highest voltage (and carries the highest current) possible.
-
Many thanks PJ.