Mark Levinson has odd choice for cap upgrades in one of their service bulletins. Why?


Pursuant to one of the Mark Levinson service bulletins, for Model 331, 332, 333 etc, they have outlined one of many things that should be performed on any amp that comes in for service.

One of the line items has me baffled. They recommend replacing four caps on each voltage gain / input board. These eight caps are PP type of .01uF @ 160v. They recommend replacing them with Ceramic X7R .01uF @ 200v. These are axial configurations.

This is not an expensive upgrade but I thought to myself that polypropylene caps had low failure rates and good longevity compared to other types especially if they were used in a proper operating envelope.

I just finished watching and reading some information on the perils of using ceramic caps in certain applications. For one, they tend to drift heavily with temperature changes. In a monster like the Model 333 there will definitely be a large temperature swing. The ceramics also tend to exhibit piezo effects with vibration. While vibration is only inducing small voltages, I can imagine the sum of many caps being subject to vibration not being a good recipe for an audio signal.

ML has stated that the ceramic replacements should be installed with spacers to keep them lifted from the circuit board. I am guessing that this could address temperature concerns, vibration or parasitic capacitance issues. They do not provide any reason.

I would really like to learn a little more behind their reasoning as it seems this particular "upgrade" is counter-intuitive. Can anyone shed some light on this?
generatorlabs
I agree with Erik. These are small value decoupling caps. So for those unfamiliar with the amp here are some images and schematic clips:

This is my beloved 332. The caps in question lay horizontally just beneath the top cover.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0yvjhlC62G7SHVJczc2ZUV2OGs

Here is a example of the schematic. The two circled caps are on the POS-VCC rail. The other two are on the NEG-VCC rail.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0yvjhlC62G7RGVBdkZlcElmTGM

I borrowed the following picture from Google images. The two voltage gain boards can be seen here. The meat and potatoes, heat producing current gain boards, are sitting beneath in a vertical position. All the heat rises and makes the area around the voltage gain boards quite toasty. The caps in question are the bright yellow axial devices. They are physically large for such small value caps.

http://brainlubeonline.com/mlrepair/IMG_1020.jpg

So the real reason I started this thread is not because I was looking for an esoteric cap to put there. These caps are a focal point for ML and they are old. My concern was the temperature. A PP cap (the type originally used) should perform better in heat than an equivalent ceramic. I say "should" but I am not an engineer. I am only using information that I have seen proven in videos that compare different capacitor types.

The second reason is that if you tap on a ceramic cap it will induce a small voltage. This can be seen on an oscilloscope. These decouplers are tied to rails that small audio path transistors use. Couldn't induced spikes of noise make its way back to the audio path? Granted these tiny ceramics do not have much surface area. A larger ceramic would have higher probability of inducing vibration related noise but to me 8 tiny caps producing 8 tiny spikes adds up to 1 mess.  An amp of this size will always be on the floor, subject to whatever vibration the surrounding loudspeakers produce.

I am not saying the ceramic option is not the way to go. I am sure the ML engineers had to put some level of thought into this but in a world where folks have power cables elevated from the floor and where using cryo-frozen power outlets, wooden knobs etc is the norm in the realm of the esoteric, it seems odd that ML would take this route. I personally do not subscribe to most of the insanity but it does not mean I do not read some of the articles describing the latest "sound salvation" gadgets. I want to learn from them, as there could be some sane measurable information in there that I could use one day.





Post removed 
@teo_audio; Why pull your post?

I get the argument from both sides and I really appreciate all input.
Dialogue like this challenges my thought processes and possibly will answer some questions for others that casually read this thread.

Since ML has made these particular PP caps an area of concern I am going to address it. Normally I would have skipped PP caps and focused all of my energy on electrolytics. I have seen bizarre ESR readings from the electrolytic caps in this amp. Two identical caps sitting right next to each other having starkly opposite readings is a reality. I now feel that the amp has had enough of its guts replaced to live another long life.

The ML service bulletin specifically called out 6 small electrolytics, 2 op amps, and the 8 PP caps described herein, as parts that had high rates of failure. I have addressed all these items with the exception of the PP caps.

I found these Philips caps which, value for value, are direct replacements. Different construction though.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-20-Pcs-01uF-160V-Film-Foil-Axial-Capacitors-Metalized-Polypropylene-DC/131455088503?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D44758%26meid%3D877ec48210ec4acaa78afefdf7b41d42%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D140594885371

The very large main caps were Philips as well. Don’t get me started on the black ooze mess they made in this amp when they failed! They had a horrendous track record so Cornell Dubliers sit there now. So should I consider these ebay Philip PP’s?

I can find a suitable replacement on Mouser or Digikey but the voltage rating is more than double. I was taught that a higher voltage cap could be used but I should not go higher than 20 percent. Any thoughts on the Philips?