For signal transfer functions; film capacitors(Teflon, polypropylene, polystyrene) are regarded as vastly superior, acoustically, but electrolytics are cheaper. Some prefer the sound of oil/paper caps in that function. David Hafler Corp(for instance) used electrolytics, on their DH-200, DH-220 and DH-500 driver boards, but offered polypropylene upgrade kits, that replaced them all. Aluminum electrolytics are used, by almost every equipment manufacturer, as power supply filter caps. Most of the problems that manufacturers have had with aluminum electrolytics, in the past few years, have arisen from those manufactured in China and Taiwan(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague)(http://www.niccomp.com/news/companypress/passive_comp_10_02.asp). ARC did have issues(SP-6C, SP-8, D-40, D-90B and some D-79B power supplies/poor welds, broken positive terminal tabs & electrolyte leakage) with Cornell-Dublier caps(then American and reliable,for ARC), for more than 20 years. After consulting with Cornell-Dublier's Engineering and Quality Control people & ARC having added a vacuum-submersion test to their procedures; 50 to 60% of the caps were still failing(bubbling through faulty seals). Some bad ones still made it into consumer hands and ARC untimately switched suppliers. I own three Oppo disc players, and have not had an issue, in six years of use. To blanketly condemn companies, for the use of electrolytics, is pure stupidity. To avoid their presence; one would be forced to abandon the use of virtually all electronic audio components.
5 responses Add your response