Saturnine - 470nF electrolytic capacitor?

[fritzypatzy]

Hello all.

I am currently building a Saturnine and I am wondering one thing.
Is the 470nF cap correct?
Wouldn't it be a 470uF instead?
I simply never saw a 470nF cap yet, though I'm sure it must exist.

Also, I don't have no 470nF electrolytic cap (can order, of course), but, if that's correct, can use a higher value?
The lowest value I have here would be 1uF...
Or 470nF film capacitor? But as it's not polarized, I guess it wouldn't work then...

Last question : is it a problem to use a B20k instead of a W20k?

Many thanks in advance to whoever will answer.

 

[fritzypatzy]

Alright... To whoever might read this someday with the same questions in mind.
I just ordered a bunch of 470nF electrolytic caps and a W20k pot.
As I need this one to sound as close as possible to the original, that was the safe way to go, I guess...

 

[Bio77]

You can always sub a non-polarized cap for a polarized one, 99% of the time. Usually, the choice to use an electrolytic cap is made to save space, as film caps start getting bulky at values near 1u. Looking at the schematic, my guess is that the electro was chosen to be true to the original trace. Ibanez, probably chose them to save cost.

For the pot, the difference between B and W is the taper. Both will work, but if you choose the B taper, you'll likely end up with most of the usable range of the pot sweep in a tight range near the beginning or end of the rotation. Ordering the W was the right move here.

 

[fritzypatzy]

Thank you for replying. It's always interesting understanding a little bit better how this is working.
As I ordered both together, I'll use them both, as intended.

 

[jesuscrisp]

Maybe you find it easier if you look for 0,47 uF but I'd rather use a non polarizer cap there anyway.

 

[fritzypatzy]

Maybe you find it easier if you look for 0,47 uF but I'd rather use a non polarizer cap there anyway.

Well I ordered some caps and they will be here with the pots, so I guess I'll go with the polarized ones for this time, but it's good to know it's not a need for next time!

 

[Robert]

470nF / 0.47uF, same value just written a different way.

The value is printed as 470n because it's more legible in the small silkscreen print on the PCB.

 

[fritzypatzy]

I know that both are the same value ! (Or it might explain why most of my recent builds are not working yet ).
The smallest electrolytic capacitor I ever used was 1uF, I guess, that's why I was wondering. And then was the necessity of polarization that was making me wonder. Wouldn't have ordered it if I knew (though I still would have needed the potentiometer.
Anyway : To be or not to be (polarized), that was the question!

 

[NSJ]

Late to the party but I’ve successfully used a wima 470nF non polarized on this build. It’s a weird fit but works fine.

 

[Dan M]

Tantalum at Tayda. They carry down to 100nF

0.47uF 35V Radial Tantalum Capacitor

AVX - Get It Fast - Same Day Shipping

www.taydaelectronics.com

 

[HamishR]

Rockett Pedals use 470nF electrolytics in some of their pedals - I figured it was to save money. If I build one of their circuits I use a Wima box cap.

 

[jesuscrisp]

Tantalum at Tayda. They carry down to 100nF

0.47uF 35V Radial Tantalum Capacitor

AVX - Get It Fast - Same Day Shipping

www.taydaelectronics.com

I wouldn't use tantalums in the signal path. Gain filters and tone stacks yes, but not in the signal path.

 

[Dan M]

I wouldn't use tantalums in the signal path. Gain filters and tone stacks yes, but not in the signal path.

Why?

 

[Feral Feline]

I’d rather have a tantalum than an electrolytic in the signal path, if box-film aren’t available in the requisite size.

 

[jesuscrisp]

Tantalums in the signal path always sound dark and compressed to me regardless of value.

 

[Dan M]

Thank you.
I’ll watch for that the next time I build something with an electrolytic specified in the signal path. I’ll try swapping between the three.