Has anyone tried Black Gate capacitors in their Trainwreck clones? They are held in high regard and are considered by some to be among the finest available. George Alessandro has them for sale on his website as an upgrade for his amps and they can be bought separately. Since they are quite expensive I was hoping to get some opinions before giving them a shot.
http://www.alessandro-products.com
Black Gate capacitor opinions
Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal
Expensive!
Hello fellow Wisconsinite!
Those Black Gates sure are expensive. Much of the price is probably driven up and supported by the hi-fi and stereo amp crowd rather than guitar amp folks.
To be honest, I can see no reason to stick all that money into filter caps. Filter caps are not in the signal path but are there to keep the B+ power supply smooth and regulated. Yes, Black Gates may be more reliable than cheaper caps. Yes, Black Gates arguably may perform better and more consistently than cheaper caps. But I would think any good quality filter caps like Sprague would do the same job just as good.
Black Gates may make a 1% or 2% difference in tone if you have built the perfect amp: optimized lead dress; all high-quality parts within 1% tolerance; ideal and tested grounding schemes; optimal resistors and capacitor values determined by plotted load lines, calculated filter networks and accurate scope measurements at all stages; perfectly matched, hand-selected tubes; etc. On the other hand, it is likely most of us building homebrew amps are not building amps that are "perfect" on paper. Instead of building a hi-fi type amp that accurately reproduces a consistent music source, we are building amps that are custom tweaked for our specific guitars, pickups, speakers, desired tones, etc. To me, Black Gates are not worth the investment in that context. I would rather spend the money on good tubes and good speakers.
Those Black Gates sure are expensive. Much of the price is probably driven up and supported by the hi-fi and stereo amp crowd rather than guitar amp folks.
To be honest, I can see no reason to stick all that money into filter caps. Filter caps are not in the signal path but are there to keep the B+ power supply smooth and regulated. Yes, Black Gates may be more reliable than cheaper caps. Yes, Black Gates arguably may perform better and more consistently than cheaper caps. But I would think any good quality filter caps like Sprague would do the same job just as good.
Black Gates may make a 1% or 2% difference in tone if you have built the perfect amp: optimized lead dress; all high-quality parts within 1% tolerance; ideal and tested grounding schemes; optimal resistors and capacitor values determined by plotted load lines, calculated filter networks and accurate scope measurements at all stages; perfectly matched, hand-selected tubes; etc. On the other hand, it is likely most of us building homebrew amps are not building amps that are "perfect" on paper. Instead of building a hi-fi type amp that accurately reproduces a consistent music source, we are building amps that are custom tweaked for our specific guitars, pickups, speakers, desired tones, etc. To me, Black Gates are not worth the investment in that context. I would rather spend the money on good tubes and good speakers.
Re: Black Gate capacitor opinions
filter caps are in the signal path. They filter and couple the signal (AC plate current) that goes from plate back to cathode (so two things). As for BGs, if you've got money to burn go for it. If you don't maybe just try one for cathode bypass (lot cheaper than those 50-50uF 500V filters). It's all a matter of the particular situation and tastes of the person listening.
Sorry for the confusion...
Dai, sorry for the confusion. By stating they are not in the signal path, I meant that they are power supply filters for the B+ rail and not coupling components from one tube stage to the next. In this capacity as power supply filter caps, they have a job to do that may slightly affect the amp's sound and response. That is what I referred to as the 1% or 2% difference in tone. But if you are changing brand names of capacitors for tone purposes, power supply filter caps are certainly not going to make as big of a difference as changing the types of coupling caps between stages for example.
Of course, I assumed we were talking about Black Gates as power supply filter caps and not coupling caps, tone caps or cathode bypass caps. If we are referring to Black Gates in those capacities, your results will differ.
Of course, I assumed we were talking about Black Gates as power supply filter caps and not coupling caps, tone caps or cathode bypass caps. If we are referring to Black Gates in those capacities, your results will differ.
Re: Black Gate capacitor opinions
To second what Dai said, if you think of an amplifier as a modulated power supply, it's easy to see that PS components are part of the signal path.
I used the Black Gate 50/50 500v in a hifi amp. I liked it better than the LCR cap it replaced, but when I rebuilt the amp on a bigger chassis I replaced it with Solen polys, which I liked the best.
Guitar amps are different creatures, so YMMV. But my thought is, for the price of a BG cap, you could get Solen polys and an additional choke and add another stage of LC filtering to your PS (assuming your chassis has the spare real estate.)
In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm currently using Sprague Atoms and some can caps in my builds. They may not be the best, but the amps I build with them sound good enough, and I have a lot more things to fix and tweak and experiment with before focusing in on that detail.
-neil
I used the Black Gate 50/50 500v in a hifi amp. I liked it better than the LCR cap it replaced, but when I rebuilt the amp on a bigger chassis I replaced it with Solen polys, which I liked the best.
Guitar amps are different creatures, so YMMV. But my thought is, for the price of a BG cap, you could get Solen polys and an additional choke and add another stage of LC filtering to your PS (assuming your chassis has the spare real estate.)
In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm currently using Sprague Atoms and some can caps in my builds. They may not be the best, but the amps I build with them sound good enough, and I have a lot more things to fix and tweak and experiment with before focusing in on that detail.
-neil
Re: Black Gate capacitor opinions
I guess that I should have been a little more specific in my original question regarding Black Gate caps. What I was wondering about was the use of these capacitors in the preamp section.
Justin
Justin
Re: Black Gate capacitor opinions
This is what I'm referring to when I say the signal does go through the filter caps (should've linked this the first time--I am a lazy bum... Sorry... >8-D).
And check out this related thread--might be some useful/interesting info also:
http://www.firebottle.com/fireforum/fir ... 000000.msg
BGs: I've used a bunch of small ones in solid state stuff like cheap mixer sections, some efx. some audio type equipment (BBE sonic max.izer), and they can contribute to cleaner sound, or in the wrong place (old Rat distortion pedal...
lol), they seem to make the sound thin (the extended freq. response showing??).
For tubes, I tried them ages ago for cath.bypass and bias filter in a Marshall and didn't like them (could be different now?--my tastes, ear?). In a Vacuum Tube Valley preamp tube comparison amp (actually I only tried one kind of tube---a 5670/2C51, etc.), they specified them for the cathode bypass--in that case they seemed to sound good (or is it not sound bad??). (Oh and just for kicks, I plugged a gtr. into that--even though wrong input impedance and all--and it was SUPER clean and bland--unlike say plugging a gtr. straight into a cheap solid state mixer--where you get crappy sort of typical solid state tone--a gtr. amp set clean sounds subjectively cleaner ). I guess it all depends how good or bad a BG will be--could be better could be worse. Maybe someone really smart can use them effectively and make the high price (for the high voltage ones) worth it.. The high price of entry seems the big obstacle for me, so that's why I recommend trying them for cathode bypass (much cheaper). Typically, ordinary filters seem good enough for me, but who knows--for someone, for some amp, etc.--maybe the extended freq. response, cleaner sound will give what they want. Perhaps better for cleans w/the extra highs being good, worse for distortion w/extended response bad(??)--just guessing. Get a rotary sw., some diff. caps of the same value and try switching them--that should say something. When it comes to "special caps"--personally, I like "specials"(can you say "cheapskate"? I knew you could...
), cheap or less expensive surplus because that audiophile sort of stuff can be pricey (and not necessarily better even though it may be more complicated and expensive to produce). Have some fun w/it get a BG, Cerafine, OS-Con, Solen, oil, whatever, and experiment!
And check out this related thread--might be some useful/interesting info also:
http://www.firebottle.com/fireforum/fir ... 000000.msg
BGs: I've used a bunch of small ones in solid state stuff like cheap mixer sections, some efx. some audio type equipment (BBE sonic max.izer), and they can contribute to cleaner sound, or in the wrong place (old Rat distortion pedal...
lol), they seem to make the sound thin (the extended freq. response showing??).For tubes, I tried them ages ago for cath.bypass and bias filter in a Marshall and didn't like them (could be different now?--my tastes, ear?). In a Vacuum Tube Valley preamp tube comparison amp (actually I only tried one kind of tube---a 5670/2C51, etc.), they specified them for the cathode bypass--in that case they seemed to sound good (or is it not sound bad??). (Oh and just for kicks, I plugged a gtr. into that--even though wrong input impedance and all--and it was SUPER clean and bland--unlike say plugging a gtr. straight into a cheap solid state mixer--where you get crappy sort of typical solid state tone--a gtr. amp set clean sounds subjectively cleaner ). I guess it all depends how good or bad a BG will be--could be better could be worse. Maybe someone really smart can use them effectively and make the high price (for the high voltage ones) worth it.. The high price of entry seems the big obstacle for me, so that's why I recommend trying them for cathode bypass (much cheaper). Typically, ordinary filters seem good enough for me, but who knows--for someone, for some amp, etc.--maybe the extended freq. response, cleaner sound will give what they want. Perhaps better for cleans w/the extra highs being good, worse for distortion w/extended response bad(??)--just guessing. Get a rotary sw., some diff. caps of the same value and try switching them--that should say something. When it comes to "special caps"--personally, I like "specials"(can you say "cheapskate"? I knew you could...
), cheap or less expensive surplus because that audiophile sort of stuff can be pricey (and not necessarily better even though it may be more complicated and expensive to produce). Have some fun w/it get a BG, Cerafine, OS-Con, Solen, oil, whatever, and experiment!Re: Black Gate capacitor opinions
(in case it scrolls off into the ether...)
quickie translation:
http://www2.famille.ne.jp/~teddy/single/single2.htm
thinking about the output signal lp. in single-ended circuits:
let's think about the signal loop in a basic sigle-ended output circuit.
In the ever-familiar (leftmost) "cathode bias A" diagram, the signal loop travels in the direction from "OPT" (output tube) to "Cb" (electrolytic cap) to "Ck" (cathode bypass cap). In this signal loop, Cb and Ck are in series w/the signal. In this case, the output signal current goes through Ck, and Cb carries both output signal current and B+ ripple.
The "Cathode Bias B" diagram (second from left) is a circuit seen in many classic amps, and "Cloop"--the signal loop closing/returning cap takes a short cut to the cathode. Since the output tube drives the output transformer, this method seems to make more sense. In this configuration, since Ck (the cathode bypass cap) is not in the signal loop, it may appear unnecessary, however, if Ck is left out, the ripple voltage still on the B+ line modulates the cathode voltage via Cloop and thus leaving out Ck will make the stage more hum sensitive. The purpose of Ck here is to shunt the remaining ripple voltage at the cathode to ground and so is of importance. In this configuration, the B+ ripple voltage goes through Ck, and Cloop sees both the output signal currentand B+ ripple current. If ripple on the B+ line here is low enough, it should be possible to leave Ck out.
This idea is developed in the next diagram "Cathode Bias C" (third from left). The loop closing and the B+ ripple current filtering functions are treated separately with separate caps, and the roles become separate and more clearly defined. In this configuration, Cloop only carries the output signal current, and Cb only handles the power supply ripple.
In the rightmost "Fixed Bias" diagram, only cap "Cb" exists. Therefore, in terms of the signal loop it is the same as in diagrams "Cathode Bias B" and "Cathode Bias C". However, it is different from those configuations in that the output signal current and ripple both travel through Cb.
Next, he goes on to experiment to check out the idea of simplifying the signal loop and connects the filter/loop closing/ripple filtering cap to the cathode directly, plus in order to handle the ripple installs a simple ripple filter using a transistor. He reports (note: this is an audio/hi-fi not a gtr. amp) very low noise "can't hear any hum at all"), and the experiment appears to confirm that the configuration works.
http://www2.famille.ne.jp/~teddy/single/single3.htm
The next thing is about trying constant current operation. I guess purifying the operation, keeping the signal loop completely isolated from ground and ripple. Doesn't quite understand what all of this does, but pros listed as same plate current regardless of the tube, should be a mode of operation even more stable than cathode bias, and since the signal lp. is closed, the signal current won't leak out through the B+ line, IOW left/right channel crosstalk separation(separation) at low frequencies should be very good.
blahblahblah....
quickie translation:
http://www2.famille.ne.jp/~teddy/single/single2.htm
thinking about the output signal lp. in single-ended circuits:
let's think about the signal loop in a basic sigle-ended output circuit.
In the ever-familiar (leftmost) "cathode bias A" diagram, the signal loop travels in the direction from "OPT" (output tube) to "Cb" (electrolytic cap) to "Ck" (cathode bypass cap). In this signal loop, Cb and Ck are in series w/the signal. In this case, the output signal current goes through Ck, and Cb carries both output signal current and B+ ripple.
The "Cathode Bias B" diagram (second from left) is a circuit seen in many classic amps, and "Cloop"--the signal loop closing/returning cap takes a short cut to the cathode. Since the output tube drives the output transformer, this method seems to make more sense. In this configuration, since Ck (the cathode bypass cap) is not in the signal loop, it may appear unnecessary, however, if Ck is left out, the ripple voltage still on the B+ line modulates the cathode voltage via Cloop and thus leaving out Ck will make the stage more hum sensitive. The purpose of Ck here is to shunt the remaining ripple voltage at the cathode to ground and so is of importance. In this configuration, the B+ ripple voltage goes through Ck, and Cloop sees both the output signal currentand B+ ripple current. If ripple on the B+ line here is low enough, it should be possible to leave Ck out.
This idea is developed in the next diagram "Cathode Bias C" (third from left). The loop closing and the B+ ripple current filtering functions are treated separately with separate caps, and the roles become separate and more clearly defined. In this configuration, Cloop only carries the output signal current, and Cb only handles the power supply ripple.
In the rightmost "Fixed Bias" diagram, only cap "Cb" exists. Therefore, in terms of the signal loop it is the same as in diagrams "Cathode Bias B" and "Cathode Bias C". However, it is different from those configuations in that the output signal current and ripple both travel through Cb.
Next, he goes on to experiment to check out the idea of simplifying the signal loop and connects the filter/loop closing/ripple filtering cap to the cathode directly, plus in order to handle the ripple installs a simple ripple filter using a transistor. He reports (note: this is an audio/hi-fi not a gtr. amp) very low noise "can't hear any hum at all"), and the experiment appears to confirm that the configuration works.
http://www2.famille.ne.jp/~teddy/single/single3.htm
The next thing is about trying constant current operation. I guess purifying the operation, keeping the signal loop completely isolated from ground and ripple. Doesn't quite understand what all of this does, but pros listed as same plate current regardless of the tube, should be a mode of operation even more stable than cathode bias, and since the signal lp. is closed, the signal current won't leak out through the B+ line, IOW left/right channel crosstalk separation(separation) at low frequencies should be very good.
blahblahblah....
Good stuff!
Dai, after reading your posted information (except for the Japanese text), it looks like you and I are thinking along the same lines. However, it looks like you are using far better words and clearer explanations. 
Thanks for reprinting that information on this forum.
Thanks for reprinting that information on this forum.Re: Black Gate capacitor opinions
no problem! That is a great page (although tube hi-fi oriented). Too bad it's in Japanese and too bad the on-line machine translators really stink (talk about discombobulated....lol).
Re: Black Gate capacitor opinions
I have tried the blackgates in the cathode bypass for V1 & V2.
I purchased a few values to see the difference in tone. I currently have a 47uf 6.3v installed in V1 and a 4.7uf 50V in V2 (both the high-end nonpolar type). I tried the standard 22uf in V2, and found the sound a bit too bassy, so the 4.7uf in V2 seemed to accentuate the mids a bit more. I also tried a 1uf 16v in V2, and the tone was a bit too bright for my liking. However, the amp did have a real plexi style bite with the 1uf, if that happens to be the sound you are after.
I also found that the amp was quieter with the blackgates installed as compared to when I had the mallory's in the preamp section.
You don't need to spend $10 a cap for the pre-amp section. The smaller value blackgates go for around $2.50 each. Check out www.partsconnexion.com.
Sobersuds
I purchased a few values to see the difference in tone. I currently have a 47uf 6.3v installed in V1 and a 4.7uf 50V in V2 (both the high-end nonpolar type). I tried the standard 22uf in V2, and found the sound a bit too bassy, so the 4.7uf in V2 seemed to accentuate the mids a bit more. I also tried a 1uf 16v in V2, and the tone was a bit too bright for my liking. However, the amp did have a real plexi style bite with the 1uf, if that happens to be the sound you are after.
I also found that the amp was quieter with the blackgates installed as compared to when I had the mallory's in the preamp section.
You don't need to spend $10 a cap for the pre-amp section. The smaller value blackgates go for around $2.50 each. Check out www.partsconnexion.com.
Sobersuds
Re: Black Gate capacitor opinions
www.percyaudio.com
he is the national distributor from what i hear. everyone in the cuontry has to buy from him. lots of nifty goodies.
also, black gates are designed to run 24-7. you wont notice the real difference until the amp has been on for at least 100 hours. this si what i am told, and i believe it.
cheaper alternative for bypass caps are sanyo oscons. wicked little caps, IMHO. i swear by them. veyr little noise/leakage.
germ
he is the national distributor from what i hear. everyone in the cuontry has to buy from him. lots of nifty goodies.
also, black gates are designed to run 24-7. you wont notice the real difference until the amp has been on for at least 100 hours. this si what i am told, and i believe it.
cheaper alternative for bypass caps are sanyo oscons. wicked little caps, IMHO. i swear by them. veyr little noise/leakage.
germ
-
David Root
- Posts: 3540
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:00 pm
- Location: Chilliwack BC
Black Gates' high speed
I had been thinking of starting a thread on BGs, then discovered this one. I have used both the WKZ/VK electrolytic filter caps and the N/NX/NX HiQ nonpolar coupling/bypass caps in a Fender style circuit and am preparing to do so again in a modern 4-stage hi-gain circuit. I like 'em!
One attribute of BG electrolytic filter caps that I didn't see in the discussion so far is their much higher speed of energy transfer, both out of the cap in response to signal, and back into the cap to replenish the stored energy level, based on the fundamental difference between BG's dry technology and conventional wet gel technology (Sprague Atoms, LCR, JJ etc.).
BGs move electrons only, conventionals move metal ions, which being far more massive than an electron move much slower. This is why BGs have order of magnitude lower ESRs, and also are much quieter. They are faster, and faster at moving large amounts of energy.
BG coupling/bypass types, especially the NX HiQ type, are very transparent, have way lower noise levels than most all others, sometimes 40 or 50 dB better, and are also very fast.
So what does all this have to do with tone in MI amps, which is what we're all about?
If you're building a 50s style blues guitar or harp amp, maybe not so much, because the components and saggy PS & OT design are so much a part of defining that tone. The BG nonpolars could be a good cheaper substitute for NOS paper in oil types, which I personally would normally use in this type of circuit.
But if you're doing hi-gain, vintage or modern, especially if you're targeting very fast clean touch response with tightness, as in a good metal or lead style amp or channel, for example, take a long look at BGs in the power supply, (or Elna Cerafines, if you can find them, which are a bit cheaper).
Especially if you are going to use a modern SS bridge rectifier made from fast soft recovery FREDs e.g. Fairchild "Stealth" FREDs or the IXYS FRED bridge rectifier assemblies, then the BG WKZ/VK electrolytics should greatly complement these fast new rectifiers that sound open and tubey, not closed and grainy like the old N4000 series diodes.
That's where I'm going on my next amp, anyway. I'll let you know how it works out. And after that one, it will be a harp amp! C'est la vie!
Stop me before I build again!!
One attribute of BG electrolytic filter caps that I didn't see in the discussion so far is their much higher speed of energy transfer, both out of the cap in response to signal, and back into the cap to replenish the stored energy level, based on the fundamental difference between BG's dry technology and conventional wet gel technology (Sprague Atoms, LCR, JJ etc.).
BGs move electrons only, conventionals move metal ions, which being far more massive than an electron move much slower. This is why BGs have order of magnitude lower ESRs, and also are much quieter. They are faster, and faster at moving large amounts of energy.
BG coupling/bypass types, especially the NX HiQ type, are very transparent, have way lower noise levels than most all others, sometimes 40 or 50 dB better, and are also very fast.
So what does all this have to do with tone in MI amps, which is what we're all about?
If you're building a 50s style blues guitar or harp amp, maybe not so much, because the components and saggy PS & OT design are so much a part of defining that tone. The BG nonpolars could be a good cheaper substitute for NOS paper in oil types, which I personally would normally use in this type of circuit.
But if you're doing hi-gain, vintage or modern, especially if you're targeting very fast clean touch response with tightness, as in a good metal or lead style amp or channel, for example, take a long look at BGs in the power supply, (or Elna Cerafines, if you can find them, which are a bit cheaper).
Especially if you are going to use a modern SS bridge rectifier made from fast soft recovery FREDs e.g. Fairchild "Stealth" FREDs or the IXYS FRED bridge rectifier assemblies, then the BG WKZ/VK electrolytics should greatly complement these fast new rectifiers that sound open and tubey, not closed and grainy like the old N4000 series diodes.
That's where I'm going on my next amp, anyway. I'll let you know how it works out. And after that one, it will be a harp amp! C'est la vie!
Stop me before I build again!!