PSUs should *never* make popping sounds. I've seen several FSPs that burned their dummy load resistors back in the day. I've also seen many with blown Fuhjyyu and YEC caps.
I wouldn't call FSP a 'quality' brand by any stretch, but that's just me. Recapped they might be better, but I'd just as soon use a recapped OEM Hipro. Caps aside, those were built like brick houses.

Though, on the other hand, the FSP-made Antec Basiq BP350s seem to run well enough after a recap. They're not by any means powerhouses, but for a basic PC that doesn't have a highfalutin graphic card or lots of mechanical drives they never me give any trouble after recap.

If you're thinking of recapping that PSU, I'd recommend using Chemi-con KY, Rubycon YXF, YXG or ZLH (YXG has lower ESR than YXF, ZLH longest load life, YXF cheapest usually) or Nichicon HE or PW for the 'regular' 85c and 105c parts, and Chemi-con KZE for the stuff needing low ESR. (Use KZE for replacing Fuhjyyu TMR, and the others for replacing Fuhjyyu TNR.)

FSP is generally okay in the sense that they didn't skip components. Bad caps I can deal with. Most other parts become very difficult to retrofit.

WOW! Someone said "highfalutin".

The proper series names for the Fuhjyyu are TN and TM.
They add the R when they sell to certain kinds of customers (which is weird) and I know that's what is usually seen in PSUs, but if you use the 3-digit version when you are looking for the datasheets you might never find them.

There are some errors in that assessment of replacement caps equivalents but I think I'll wait and see if the OP plans to recap anything before I write all that (again....)

There is a reasonable chance that the problem isn't caps related.
Arcing can sound like pops.
A winding may be loose and mobile in a transformer or on a toroid coil.
.

PCBONEZ wrote:

There are some errors in that assessment of replacement caps equivalents but I think I'll wait and see if the OP plans to recap anything before I write all that (again....)

I suppose I should explain why I recommended what I did. My bias regarding cap recommendations is toward long life (> 3000 Hr) caps. As a habit and with money and specs permitting, I try to use long-life caps whenever and wherever possible.
Though, if you must be a stickler for paper specs (which may be dubious coming from Fuhjyyu anyway), then I suppose we'd use Rubycon PX for the TN (Fuhjyyu quotes 810 mArms figure for 2200uF 6.3v 10x25, while PX quotes 775 mArms in a shorter 10x16 size; the 10v version gives 860 mArms in the same can), and Rubycon YXG for TM (which are very close spec wise, except that YXG is in a very slightly taller can at 10x23 vs. 10x20 for the TM). Or just use YXG for everything.

Admittedly YXF may be a bit too big (the same values give 1300 mArms ripple but in a wider 12.5x20 can) or fall a little short spec wise in some cases. KZE are overkill perhaps for TM, but personally I like that kind of overkill. As always compare datasheets before making a final decision.

PCBONEZ wrote:

There is a reasonable chance that the problem isn't caps related. Arcing can sound like pops. A winding may be loose and mobile in a transformer or on a toroid coil.

Yeah, that is a reasonable possibility too. BP350 aside, I never had that great luck with FSP, I don't find them to be particularly good. (And their Yate Loon fans are Satan incarnate, I swear it.)

PCBONEZ wrote:

WOW! Someone said "highfalutin".

At least I didn't write it like 'high-falootin''. 🤣

Eep386 wrote:

I suppose I should explain why I recommended what I did. My bias regarding cap recommendations is toward long life (> 3000 Hr) c […]
Show full quote

PCBONEZ wrote:

There are some errors in that assessment of replacement caps equivalents but I think I'll wait and see if the OP plans to recap anything before I write all that (again....)

I suppose I should explain why I recommended what I did. My bias regarding cap recommendations is toward long life (> 3000 Hr) caps. As a habit and with money and specs permitting, I try to use long-life caps whenever and wherever possible.
Though, if you must be a stickler for paper specs (which may be dubious coming from Fuhjyyu anyway), then I suppose we'd use Rubycon PX for the TN (Fuhjyyu quotes 810 mArms figure for 2200uF 6.3v 10x25, while PX quotes 775 mArms in a shorter 10x16 size; the 10v version gives 860 mArms in the same can), and Rubycon YXG for TM (which are very close spec wise, except that YXG is in a very slightly taller can at 10x23 vs. 10x20 for the TM). Or just use YXG for everything.

Admittedly YXF may be a bit too big (the same values give 1300 mArms ripple but in a wider 12.5x20 can) or fall a little short spec wise in some cases. KZE are overkill perhaps for TM, but personally I like that kind of overkill. As always compare datasheets before making a final decision.

I know you're well intentioned and you clearly know more than most people but you still have a few things confused.

For example you said "YXG has lower ESR than YXF, ZLH" - Well, ZLH's ESR is a full 2 tiers better (lower ESR) than YXG.
You also put HE and PW together. Those are close only in 8mm sizes. The 10mm and 12.5mm specs are quite different.
Thus the PW are bottom tier and HE are one better.

When you put all the 'good cap' specs in to a spreadsheet (8mm + 10mm + 12.5mm) based on can sizes the Grades (Tiers) become clearly defined.
Most of them 'cluster' in certain ESR/Ripple ranges making equivalents easy to see. Those clusters are what I'm calling tiers or grades.
[Have to come back to all that later.]

Rubycon PX are not low ESR caps and should not even enter the conversation.
15+ years ago Chris (aka TC) over at badcaps.net started stocking them because he was being Rubycon-centric (wanted to carry only Rubycon) and PX filled a gap in Rubycon's Low ESR product lineup. He chose a Rubycon brand GP cap to fill the hole.
Primarily it was about a 10mm 3300uF needed for PSUs when a 12.5mm won't fit. The PX was a last resort for that impossible to find size for those with "Rubycon Fever"..
Because BCN carried them people got the wrong idea (thought they were better than they are) and that has been perpetuated every since.
PX are simply not Low ESR and since 15 years ago alternatives to using PX that actually are Low ESR have become available.

Fuhjyyu TN are not Low ESR - But should be where they are used.
Any Low ESR cap will do for those. PW & FC are easy to find and will work nicely in most cases.
LXZ are good for some of the small ones.

Fuhjyyu TM (with their erratic datasheet) are about 2nd tier which makes them equivalent to FK(10&12.5mm) , KY, HE, YXG, YXH
Upgrading to 3rd tier ( FK(8mm), ZL, HD, GK, KZE, WX, NRSG) is not a bad idea to replace the TM if for no other reason than Fuhjyyu datasheets aren't trusted.

The Lifetime aka Load Life aka Endurance (and like 5 other names) rating is not useful unless you are an Engineer.
It's not what people think it is. - It's not about Life-SPAN at all. - It tells you nothing about how long a cap will last.
Do you really think quality caps only last 2000, 3000 or even 9000 hours? A year is 8760 hours.
[More later maybe.]
.

Eep386 wrote:

Yeah, that is a reasonable possibility too. BP350 aside, I never had that great luck with FSP, I don't find them to be particularly good. (And their Yate Loon fans are Satan incarnate, I swear it.)

FSP has had a very long run and certainly their products have varied but in general they are okay. (Barring bad caps.)
They are at least a few steps up from the cheap ones that come bundled with cases.
I'm not saying the are great. - I'm saying they are usually okay.

Years ago Sparkle (SPI) and FSP merged.
Prior to that Sparkle specialized in server equipment and higher end OEM.
Since then model numbers that begin with 'SPI' are the higher end models and 'FSP' are the standard.
That said, sometimes (especially in the last few years) there is not much difference between SPI and FSP models.

I agree HiPro are better. I get HiPro OEM units out of Dells now and then.
Just don't confuse them with the 2 or 3 crap brands with similar names. Those really are crap.
Dells are a good place to find Deltas too.
.

Eep386 wrote:

PCBONEZ wrote:

WOW! Someone said "highfalutin".

At least I didn't write it like 'high-falootin''. 🤣

Either one works for me.
Were it not for spell checkers people would think English is my second language. 🤣
.

PCBONEZ wrote:

For example you said "YXG has lower ESR than YXF, ZLH" - Well, ZLH's ESR is a full 2 tiers better (lower ESR) than YXG. You also put HE and PW together. Those are close only in 8mm sizes. The 10mm and 12.5mm specs are quite different. Thus the PW are bottom tier and HE are one better.

Ah, okay. I was certain ZLH had higher ESR than YXG in some cases, but I guess that was just my memory.
FK is a series I am not familiar with. Guess I've got some reading to catch up on.

I thought HE and PW were similar too, I guess HE do have definitively better ESR figures once the can size increases over 8mm. (Though if they fit, both are still fine candidates for replacing Fuhjyyu TN I'd wager.)

PCBONEZ wrote:

Do you really think quality caps only last 2000, 3000 or even 9000 hours? A year is 8760 hours.

Nope, I know that good caps generally last much longer than the torture-rated life quote, provided they aren't run close to their temperature limit. Again, I just pick long-life out of habit, when money/specsheet permits.

PCBONEZ wrote:

I agree HiPro are better. I get HiPro OEM units out of Dells now and then. Just don't confuse them with the 2 or 3 crap brands with similar names. Those really are crap.

Indeed.

@ Eep386

FK are tough to find in the US. The only source I know is Newark One (aka Element 14).
The series has two that are tough to find for PSUs. A 2200uF 16v 10mm and a 3300uF 6.3v 10mm.
4 or 5 years ago Newark was going to drop the series so I wrote them a letter and pleaded with them not to.
It seems they listened.

Panasonic recently released an FS series which has specs constant with FR and FM.
Dunno why they need 3 series in the same range but as long as they keep making them I'm smiling.
.

I thought FM was being phased out.

gdjacobs wrote:

I thought FM was being phased out.

So did I.
I heard something like that when they released FR but then they never actually did it.
Panny announces planned product deletions far (like 1-2 years) in advance and I don't see one for FM.
FM are also not marked EOL in their 2018 catalog.
.
There are certain audiophile circles that think FM are something special for their PSUs.
Maybe they pitched a fuss back when FR was released and panny changed their mind.
Just a guess. I really don't know.
.
Audiophools can make a lot of noise when they want to............ 🤣 🤣 🤣

PCBONEZ wrote:

I heard something like that when they released FR but then they never actually did it. Panny announces planned product deletions […]
Show full quote

gdjacobs wrote:

I thought FM was being phased out.

I heard something like that when they released FR but then they never actually did it.
Panny announces planned product deletions far (like 1-2 years) in advance and I don't see one for FM.
FM are also not marked EOL in their 2018 catalog.

The funny thing is that for a given can size, the FR and FM caps have the same specs. The only difference I see on the datasheets is the endurance rating.

As far as selecting between them, the key difference is just that for a given capacitance value and voltage rating, the FR comes in a smaller can. So if the FM will fit, it is probably preferred since the larger can offers better specs. But if FM doesn't fit, then you use the FR.
Other than the different endurance ratings, the FR series just looks like a set of optional can sizes for the FM series.

The fact that all the specs match can't be a coincidence. I see 2 possibilities:
1) FM and FR are the same caps, and marketing decided they wanted the optional downsized caps to have a different series name for whatever reason.
2) The caps are actually different, but marketing decided they wanted the paper specs to look the same.

Hard to know which is the case.
As far as the endurance - per the above I'm not sure if it's a real difference. In any case, the FM have proven to be reliable. I don't expect any surprises from the FR, but if I was worried about long lifetimes I'd still consider the FR the "less proven" of the two, regardless of what the paper says.

Endurance (aka Lifetime, aka other...) is not something that should weigh heavily in cap choosing for someone replacing existing caps in normal things.
It's an Engineering thing [results of a formal test] and it literally has ZERO effect on capacitor life-span in normal real world applications.
It's only given in datasheets because entities like NASA and the Military expect to see it for equipment that operates in extremely harsh environments that call out endurance ratings in the equipment specs.

Essentially they put the cap at max temp (internally), max volts, max ripple and probably max-other (haven't read it in ages) all at the same time.
They run it like that for [the Endurance rating] hours.
Then they return the cap to normal conditions until the core cools to 20˚C. (The 20˚C in the datasheets.)
They then test if all the ratings (uF, leakage, ESR and so on) are in the advertised ranges. (Like +/-20% for uF)
If they are it passes the test.
- Thus what is really tested is how long it can be abused and NOT sustain any internal damage.
- Which can be interpreted as - how long it can be abused without affecting it's life-span.

Unless you are going to adjust your 12v rail to 16v and your 3.3v & 5v rails to 6.3v or 10v and crank up the ripple somehow and put your machine inside a 105˚C oven the "clock" on Endurance conditions is never going to start and the Endurance rating is totally irrelevant to you.
.
Also note it is very unlikely that every cap in a series has the same exact results from this test.
It's also unlikely they repeat the test repeatedly for every possibility for number of hours to see where the caps place.
More likely they calculate a number of hours and then test to see if the caps are compliant.
In other words it's a very loose spec. It's an "at least" value, not an exact value.
.
---
[Ignoring Temperature...]
Wet-Lytic Life-SPAN is most affected by the chemicals in the electrolyte breaking down over time and the the Endurance Test doesn't do anything to test that.
.

shamino wrote:

The funny thing is that for a given can size, the FR and FM caps have the same specs. The only difference I see on the datashee […]
Show full quote

PCBONEZ wrote:

I heard something like that when they released FR but then they never actually did it. Panny announces planned product deletions […]
Show full quote

gdjacobs wrote:

I thought FM was being phased out.

I heard something like that when they released FR but then they never actually did it.
Panny announces planned product deletions far (like 1-2 years) in advance and I don't see one for FM.
FM are also not marked EOL in their 2018 catalog.

The funny thing is that for a given can size, the FR and FM caps have the same specs. The only difference I see on the datasheets is the endurance rating.

As far as selecting between them, the key difference is just that for a given capacitance value and voltage rating, the FR comes in a smaller can. So if the FM will fit, it is probably preferred since the larger can offers better specs. But if FM doesn't fit, then you use the FR.
Other than the different endurance ratings, the FR series just looks like a set of optional can sizes for the FM series.

The fact that all the specs match can't be a coincidence. I see 2 possibilities:
1) FM and FR are the same caps, and marketing decided they wanted the optional downsized caps to have a different series name for whatever reason.
2) The caps are actually different, but marketing decided they wanted the paper specs to look the same.

When they announced FR there was some verbiage to the effect that it was a down-size replacement for FM.
That meant a smaller can for a given uF.
The thing is ESR varies with can size (not uF) so can size is what you have to use to compare cap series to one another.
In regard to can sizes and ESR the FR, FM and FS are nearly identical.
In regard to can size and uF they are different.
-
No. they are not the same.
The new ones are packing more uF into smaller cans so there has to be some internal differences.
Perhaps different foil alloy or etching or thickness, different electrolyte - something like that.
.
There is a note in the FS datasheet that says "1 size smaller than FR" so I guess it's just further miniaturization.
So.... FM got smaller twice. I'm good with that!
.

PCBONEZ wrote:

When they announced FR there was some verbiage to the effect that it was a down-size replacement for FM. That meant a smaller ca […]
Show full quote

When they announced FR there was some verbiage to the effect that it was a down-size replacement for FM.
That meant a smaller can for a given uF.
The thing is ESR varies with can size (not uF) so can size is what you have to use to compare cap series to one another.
In regard to can sizes and ESR the FR, FM and FS are nearly identical.
In regard to can size and uF they are different.
-
No. they are not the same.
The new ones are packing more uF into smaller cans so there has to be some internal differences.
Perhaps different foil alloy or etching or thickness, different electrolyte - something like that.
.
There is a note in the FS datasheet that says "1 size smaller than FR" so I guess it's just further miniaturization.
So.... FM got smaller twice. I'm good with that!
.

Lots of capacitor series have alternate can sizes available for the same capacitance/voltage rating though. Nichicon HM (no longer produced) for one example.
I haven't looked at Panasonic FS, but FM vs FR seems to be a peculiar case where the smaller sized offering has a different series designation, and it's not clear whether there's really a good reason for that, other than the claimed higher endurance. Maybe it's just a different corporate philosophy - I don't know if this pattern holds consistent within the respective manufacturers, haven't studied it that close.

I've also seen an opposite situation, but I don't remember the series. Under some series (from one of the major Japanese brands), it looked like there were 2 totally different types of caps that had been artificially merged under the same series designation. It looked like there was a clear break-point in the specs above a certain voltage rating or something like that.

As far as the significance of the endurance spec, I think the underlying assumption is that even after derating is considered, the cap that has a higher endurance at 105C will still have a higher endurance at 85C or 75C or whatever. I'm sure that's not always entirely true though, and the more you project outwards the more clumsy that assumption likely becomes.
One wrinkle I think I've read was about aqueous vs non-aqueous having possibly different derating behavior. And that's further complicated by the fact that not all "aqueous" caps have the same amount of water content.
For example, I would not trust an aggressive, outer-fringe "ultra" low ESR cap like say Rubycon MCZ or Nichicon HN to last as long as something more conservative like YXG or HE or especially the really conservative types like PW and FC. I'm not an expert, but I suspect that life critical equipment would balk at using products on the tier of MCZ or HN, but might sometimes be seen with PW and FC type caps.
However, since these series won't fulfill the same specs, when recapping an existing device you don't normally make the choice based on endurance anyway.

Many people don't realize how dramatically the endurance increases with lower temperature, so they might see the spec for max stress conditions and think it's worse than it really is. For those who don't know - the general guideline is that endurance doubles for every 10C reduction, so a 2000hr rated 105C cap is a lot better than it sounds. Keeping this in mind, it's 4-8x as good as the rating on most general purpose 85C caps (85C at 1000-2000hrs is typical for those).

I know what you are trying to say but you are using Endurance incorrectly. Endurance relates specifically (and only) to the test.
The confusion comes from poor wording in datasheets. I get it. I'm just trying to straighten it out.

The expression you are looking for I think is Useful Life (or Useful Lifetime/Lifespan)
That's two words together as a unit, "Useful" and "Lifetime". "Endurance Lifetime" aka "Load Life" is a completely different thing.
Endurance has no bearing whatsoever on Useful Lifetime because....
.... Endurance is determined with ALL parameters maxed out simultaneously. Useful Lifetime assumes none of them are maxed out.
.... Endurance is the amount of abuse time to achieve ZERO DAMAGE to the cap.

Post the Endurance test the caps are expected to last their full Useful Lifetime as if the test never happened.

The WHOLE POINT of doing the test is that Engineers designing circuits want to know how long they can go out of spec and NOT break anything for the life of the equipment.
.

----------
Historically capacitor manufactures don't publish Useful Lifetime information.
I think they had liability concerns least the caps not live up to the numbers. (They didn't wanna get sued.)
Some of them did publish the equations which are a bit of a pita to use and require a lot of assumptions.
Various places gave the accuracy of those equations in the range of +/- 40%. (Or worse.)
At +/-40% if the math said 10 years it really meant anywhere between 6 and 14 years.
Not very useful.
.

Yes a 10˚C reduction doubles the Endurance Lifetime and it doubles the Useful Lifetime.
But it's not because they are related the way you (and I used to) think it's because the temperature factor is located in the same place in both equations.

If you double pickles and double oranges they both double but that doesn't make pickles oranges.
( I just wanted to say that... 🤣 🤣 🤣 )

Anyway.
If you are truly worried about the longevity of your caps then improve your cooling.
... And stay away from 85˚C caps.
.

PCBONEZ wrote:

The proper series names for the Fuhjyyu are TN and TM. They add the R when they sell to certain kinds of customers (which is wei […]
Show full quote

The proper series names for the Fuhjyyu are TN and TM.
They add the R when they sell to certain kinds of customers (which is weird) and I know that's what is usually seen in PSUs, but if you use the 3-digit version when you are looking for the datasheets you might never find them.

There are some errors in that assessment of replacement caps equivalents but I think I'll wait and see if the OP plans to recap anything before I write all that (again....)

There is a reasonable chance that the problem isn't caps related.
Arcing can sound like pops.
A winding may be loose and mobile in a transformer or on a toroid coil.
.

Would you recommend me use a different PSU all together? I would prefer it to be era correct or at least look like it is with a 20pin and no EPS. Also, it's hard to find anything with a nice 5V rail these days. Opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.