[sdiy] speaking of tantalums...
grant at musictechnologiesgroup.com
Mon Nov 26 03:36:13 CET 2018
What was the original voltage value on the caps (and which rail)? Just
trying to see how much "headroom" SCI had on their tant cap voltage
spec, in light of the recent discussions.
On 11/25/2018 4:12 PM, gm wrote:
> While I agree that unnecessary work should be avoided, in the case of
> P5s (and P10s, and ARPs and Oberheims from the eighties) the tantalum
> bypass caps are the most common failure points.
> I've got over 500 P5s in my repair database, and a good half of them
> came in with one or more tantalums shorted out. Replacing them with
> high-temp modern electrolytics is part of my routine service.
> The P5 (whatever rev) has tantalum power bypass caps on the power
> supply, front panel, CPU and voice boards, all of which should be
> replaced to ensure longer life of the instrument.
> On 11/25/2018 3:50 PM, rsdio at audiobanshee.com wrote:
>> As someone who would consider purchasing a P5 r3.3, I say No.
>> There’s no need to replace capacitors that have not failed. The copper traces on these PCBs can be fragile, and any desoldering heat could cause damage. It’s best to avoid unnecessary surgery.
>> If you restrict yourself to the power supply PCB only, then perhaps, but I still don’t see it as an advantage. The more work that is done on these ancient beasts, the more fragile they become.
>> Brian Willoughby
>> On Nov 25, 2018, at 2:39 PM, Adam Inglis<21pointy at tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>> I’m getting a Prophet 5 rev 3.3. (no midi) ready for sale. I’m wondering if I should be replacing the tantalums in it. They seem to be considered a ticking time bomb. One site I came across suggested replacing the decoupling tants with low ESR electrolytics, I assume you just use identical farad values:
>>> Anyone experienced with these machines care to comment?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Synth-diy