Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#241
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
If you prefer to sit in the dark, listening to test tones with your
perfect 0 percent distortion amp driving 6 way speakers (to get every bit of that frequency response), more power to you. This used to be a hobbyist site, where all sorts of speakers and tube topoligies were discussed, mostly with a bit of dignity and respect. It seems to have degraded to a bunch of knee-jerk engineering narrow-minded snipers, hell-bent on telling us what couldn't possibly be good for audio. I don't recall ever hearing so much negativity about audio on this group, even with all the old flame wars (I've been around the NG for about 7 years or so). I was a newbie thinking of messing around with tube audio, this group would knock the stuffing out of my aspirations and ideas on no time flat. Bob H. Eeyore wrote: Sander deWaal wrote: Eeyore said: You're pathetic. A tribute to audiophoolery. Al 's a happy tinkerer. With all respect for your status as a pro designer (so am I, in a smaller and different way), I'm afraid you've lost that ability somewhere along the way............ I think you'd be mistaken there ! I love that kind of tinkering that ( for example ) reduces THD to vanishingly small levels such as 0.00x %. It's a technical and intellectual challenge and I don't have to use brute force global nfb to do it either ! Of course I don't 'tinker' as such, apart maybe from on the simulation package. Almost all of it is pure science. Very satisfying it is too to see it work as per the theory. It's also nice to hear ppl praise one's products to because they like the way they sound. :-) Graham |
#242
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.pro,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
Vishay talk ******** - was Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
" wrote: Eeyore wrote: Phat Bytestard wrote: On 25 Jul 2006 19:32:06 -0700, " The top posting dip****, gave us: Hi John, Since Graham has forced us to this dance, may I say you seem to have your priorities straight, Are you smarter than Graham, or simply older? Both? Please, if you are younger and dumber than G, keep it to yourself. If you can do that, you are smarter than you know who You're an idiot. The top post proves that. He's also a believer in *magic capacitors* ! Notably these ones he's recently installed. http://v-cap.com/tefloncapacitors.html " Now it is possible to get the smooth, liquid, and "musical" presentation of an oil capacitor, but with even better refinement, transparency and inner detail. Hear and feel true low frequency extension without any loss of control. Immerse youself in a holographic soundstage emanating from a velvety black background, while enjoying the midrange liquidity and bloom coveted by oil capacitor afficionados. " Maybe John would like to clarify for him what he thinks of audiophools ? Graham OK, is the proper bottom post? You guys are picky, picky, picky. You'll never be criticised for bottom posting for sure. Inline posting is excellent too. On rare occasions top-posting is acceptable but normally frowned upon otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post I like the caps. I did say ignore the mumbo jumbo. I was meaning to ask what kind of caps they replaced btw. You may be interested to know that *some* caps are indeed unsuitable for audio signal circuits. Notably certain types of ceramic caps ( medium-K and hi-K types ) and electrolyic caps when misused / abused / improperly specced for the job . All can add distortion which is easily measured to clarify the point. Perhaps audiophool is overly specific. I am an old fool who likes what he hears, whether or not I really hear it or just think I hear it Sorry, Graham, I thought maybe you had the best test gear, I get lots of this technical stuff out of sequence. That's why I don't work, ... well, that and being horizontal, mostly I do have access to Audio Precision test gear but I don't own it. I've considerd buying my own set though. http://www.audioprecision.com/index.php Actually, I believe Graham cross posted my thread, so only he needs admit to any rabid ear bigotry It proved interesting and certainly put my mind at rest over something that had been bothering me - noisy surface mount resistors btw - so my aversion to ( or rather caution about ) going suface mount proves not have been misplaced. Graham |
#243
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
"Bob H." wrote: If you prefer to sit in the dark, listening to test tones with your perfect 0 percent distortion amp driving 6 way speakers (to get every bit of that frequency response), more power to you. I don't though ! Indeed my favourite music is a live performance. This used to be a hobbyist site, where all sorts of speakers and tube topoligies were discussed, mostly with a bit of dignity and respect. It seems to have degraded to a bunch of knee-jerk engineering narrow-minded snipers, hell-bent on telling us what couldn't possibly be good for audio. I don't recall ever hearing so much negativity about audio on this group, even with all the old flame wars (I've been around the NG for about 7 years or so). Well, I have no respect for pseudo-science, myth and old wives' tales which is all that *certain* contributors to this group ( one of them for the most part ) can offer. The simple fact of the matter is that science *does* have the answers but you need to understand the science ( and engineering practice ) first ! I was a newbie thinking of messing around with tube audio, this group would knock the stuffing out of my aspirations and ideas on no time flat. You're afraid of healthy debate ? I'm well aware that some ppl enjoy the colouration of vintage circuitry and toobs in particular - and they're fully entitled to their preferences but for them to present it as some kind of superior 'fidelity' is plain perverse. There is really a need for a new term. One that takes account of the subjective nature of the opinions. I rather doubt all toob lovers like the SET configuration for example, yet some rave about it as if it were the Holy Grail ! Perhaps you could offer an opinion as to why a certain poster here talks about 'silicon slime' - and then justify why the criticism can be one way only ? Graham |
#244
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
The simple fact of the matter is that science *does* have the answers but you need to understand the science ( and engineering practice ) first ! I have the equipment, but I let my ears tell me what sounds good to me. I am a electronics tech, but you DON'T have to understand those things in order to build an good amp or speakers, and many people have built their own equipment succesfully with guidance from others who do understand the the HOBBY. You're afraid of healthy debate ? I'd hardly call condemning entire areas of audio reproduction as only for fools healthy. It's just niave and arrogant. Perhaps you could offer an opinion as to why a certain poster here talks about 'silicon slime' - and then justify why the criticism can be one way only ? I don't know, but you seem to be following in the same footsteps about set and fr. Perhaps you could just refer to me as setslime? I'm well aware that some ppl enjoy the colouration of vintage circuitry and toobs in particular - and they're fully entitled to their preferences but for them to present it as some kind of superior 'fidelity' is plain perverse. There is really a need for a new term. One that takes account of the subjective nature of the opinions. I rather doubt all toob lovers like the SET configuration for example, yet some rave about it as if it were the Holy Grail ! All I stated previously was my opinion, that I like fr speakers and set. I didn't say anything about "holy grails" or other such. Your bias and narrow-mindedness has created all the colorful descriptions stated above. I like set, pp, and in fact am listening music on a two stage cathode follower on headphones at the moment. When I disconnected the ot's, I simply changed cathode resistors until the music sounded right. No science there, just listening. and BTW, where do you get coloration about an amp running .8 percent thd at 1 watt with almost no level of 3rd hd with a solid 20-20k freq responce, on a speaker which only requires about half of that for loud listening? Is it created somewhere? Elves, perhaps? Bob H. |
#245
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
"Bob H." wrote: The simple fact of the matter is that science *does* have the answers but you need to understand the science ( and engineering practice ) first ! I have the equipment, but I let my ears tell me what sounds good to me. I am a electronics tech, but you DON'T have to understand those things in order to build an good amp or speakers, That may produce an adequate amplifier or whatever but unlikely ever to produce a stunning one. I'm well aware that ppl tend to proud of their own creations to the point of losing objectivity. and many people have built their own equipment succesfully with guidance from others who do understand the the HOBBY. There's something wrong with understanding the science as part of a hobby ? A classic case of today's dumbing down if you ask me ! I started off as a hobbyist myself at 12 FWIW and *learnt* as well as tinkered. You're afraid of healthy debate ? I'd hardly call condemning entire areas of audio reproduction as only for fools healthy. It's just niave and arrogant. Where did I condemn it ? Perhaps you could offer an opinion as to why a certain poster here talks about 'silicon slime' - and then justify why the criticism can be one way only ? I don't know, but you seem to be following in the same footsteps about set and fr. Perhaps you could just refer to me as setslime? What's set and fr ? Oh - ok I got it. I'm used to seeing SET. I'm well aware that some ppl enjoy the colouration of vintage circuitry and toobs in particular - and they're fully entitled to their preferences but for them to present it as some kind of superior 'fidelity' is plain perverse. There is really a need for a new term. One that takes account of the subjective nature of the opinions. I rather doubt all toob lovers like the SET configuration for example, yet some rave about it as if it were the Holy Grail ! All I stated previously was my opinion, that I like fr speakers Oh. Full range. Shame what you're missing I guess. I'll venture that's because you've never heard anything really good so you're effectively stuck in a rut. My own speakers have leaf tweeters btw. I doubt you're listening to that kind of treble clarity. There is simply *no way* that any full range driver even comes with hailing distance of any of these for example ( oh and there are good scientific reasons why - unless you're keen on 'telephone line quality' of course ) http://www.pmcloudspeaker.com/index2.html and set. I didn't say anything about "holy grails" or other such. I had someone else in mind actually ! Your bias and narrow-mindedness has created all the colorful descriptions stated above. You haven't seen the kind of bias and narrow-mindedness that others here exhibit ! They wouldn't even allow me my preferences ! At least I'm honest about accepting other ppls' listening likes and dislikes even if I can't understand them ( a bit like religion really and the SET crowd are indeed quasi-religious in their belief - so absurd has it become ) I like set, pp, and in fact am listening music on a two stage cathode follower on headphones at the moment. A cathode follower is about as different to an SET as it's possible to get ! They're actually quite linear which is something you could never say of the SET. When I disconnected the ot's, Eh ? Care to explain what you did in detail ? I simply changed cathode resistors until the music sounded right. No science there, just listening. and BTW, where do you get coloration about an amp running .8 percent thd at 1 watt with almost no level of 3rd hd with a solid 20-20k freq responce, on a speaker which only requires about half of that for loud listening? Is it created somewhere? Elves, perhaps? An SET with no feedback will for starters have a very coloured frequency response as its output is very senstive to load impedance ( and speakers have very variable impedance with frequency ). ' Almost no level' of 3rd harmonic isn't truly a measure I can relate to. Graham |
#246
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
Eeyore said:
You're pathetic. A tribute to audiophoolery. Al 's a happy tinkerer. With all respect for your status as a pro designer (so am I, in a smaller and different way), I'm afraid you've lost that ability somewhere along the way............ I think you'd be mistaken there ! I sure hope so. I love that kind of tinkering that ( for example ) reduces THD to vanishingly small levels such as 0.00x %. It's a technical and intellectual challenge and I don't have to use brute force global nfb to do it either ! That's *your* challenge. Al's challenge is to get something working that satisfies him. MyFi, remember? Of course I don't 'tinker' as such, apart maybe from on the simulation package. Almost all of it is pure science. Very satisfying it is too to see it work as per the theory. So can tinkering with tubes be. It's also nice to hear ppl praise one's products to because they like the way they sound. :-) I know the feeling ;-) Nevertheless, I'm somewhere between worlds I think. On the one side, I am a professional designer, striving for high accuracy at loud levels with solid state designs. On the other side, I am a hobbyist, and I confess to have tried using different kinds of capacitors in my hobby amps as well. The (single) blind test I once performed, showed me no difference between cheap Wimas and expensive Mundorfs. And yet, I put in those Mundorfs, just because I liked them! I know all the arguments as to why it shouldn't matter, I have the results of my blind test, but I still dervive more pleasure from knowing the Mundorfs are in there. Don't you think Al *knows* that his new caps don't do things differently? He doesn't care, cuz it makes him a happer man. I can understand both the scientific approach, and the hobbyist approach. I have respect for both. And I certainly have respect for Al, doing what he is doing. Being a whiplash patient myself, I all too well understand his comments about having enough energy left to do something. -- "All amps sound alike, but some sound more alike than others". |
#247
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.pro,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
Vishay talk ******** - was Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
Eeyore wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: John Fields wrote: EG&G, early on, had "Vactrols" with incandescents, LED's, and Neons as the emitters and LDRs as the variable resistance elements. They still do. The incandescent is slower than the LDR, but the LED and neons are faster. The LED has a pretty sharp knee, the neons have a sharper knee, and the incandescent hardly has any knee at all. All good tools for different jobs. When you say 'knee' here Scott, which 2 parameters are you comparing ? Input voltage (or current, depending on the device) and output resistance. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#249
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
"Prune" wrote in message 4.76... That was a joke, of course. However, for Wikipedia indeed I have great distrust, since with a little research some very serious issues about the editorial wars and various unscrupulous practices of Wikipedia's overseers come up. That would be claimed unscrupulous practices, not unambigiously proven ones. Are there unhappy critics of any work of substance? Of course! The truth is that in a democracy one gets the rule of the lowest common denominator -- and that's a bad thing. Then the good news for you is that democratic means are not used to determine what appears in the Wikipedia. |
#250
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.pro,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
Vishay talk ******** - was Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
On 25 Jul 2006 21:40:12 -0700, "
Gave us: OK, is the proper bottom post? You guys are picky, picky, picky. It has been a Usenet convention for over 30 years. Do you run red light just because you feel like it or are too lazy to stop? |
#251
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
Phil Allison wrote:
http://v-cap.com/tefloncapacitors.html ** Err - does " tin foil " = aluminium foil, here ?? ...... Phil No, these use tin, not aluminum. Phil |
#252
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
Phil wrote: No, these use tin, not aluminum. Phil Hi RATs! Subject caps now have 300+ hours of playing time. They are very pleasant. Perhaps more so, as they "burn in", but, let us be fair, it is hard to do double blind testing of the same devices at different points in time. Maybe I am learning to appreciate them more! (But, I am doubtful I am learning anything, at my age ...) I only bought these caps because a neighborhood old audio fool I have learned to believe over the years (and I trust everybody, but, believe nobody, except a few, on occasion...) bought some and was pleased. No one showed me real measurements I wouldn't care if they are cleverly disguised inner chewing gum wrappers rolled into capacitor looking packages. I like how they sound. And, I know someone who has an Audio Precision system in his home. He gives me lots of good advice. He never mentions his toy gives him the insight of God Almighty. Perhaps he is too wise for such silly posturing Changing anything in my Audio Dungeon may affect my perception of Music. I may notice 8^0 Changing nothing in my Audio Dungeon might be good for earnest evaluations of components, but I Ching is a rascally Coyote ... I enjoy Music through cheap SS amps and cheap speakers, too. I do not think they sound the same as my fancy stuff, but, Music hath charms to soothe the savage technoid. I enjoy the Quest. I enjoy the comradery. I suffer the neo-wizards lightly. Forgive them, Father, they just like to talk, too ... just like me. Happy Ears! Al |
#253
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors, and Auricaps or others
" wrote: Phil wrote: No, these use tin, not aluminum. Phil Hi RATs! Subject caps now have 300+ hours of playing time. They are very pleasant. Perhaps more so, as they "burn in", but, let us be fair, it is hard to do double blind testing of the same devices at different points in time. Maybe I am learning to appreciate them more! (But, I am doubtful I am learning anything, at my age ...) I only bought these caps because a neighborhood old audio fool I have learned to believe over the years (and I trust everybody, but, believe nobody, except a few, on occasion...) bought some and was pleased. About the same kind of things get said about Auricaps, that after fitting them they "burn in" and begin to increase the quality of the sound in subjective ways. I replaced regular Wima polyprops in a client's preamp recently and did one channel before the other. We had an AB test with various music recordings in mono to find if he could choose which channel had the Auricaps and which one had the old Wimas ( which presumably were "burned in" ). He could not identify better than 50% of the time or say which channel was better, different, or had the Auricaps or Wimas. I switched between one channel and the other, asking him to identify where the "better" caps were or not, but he just couldn't pick it out accurately. I smiled when he said "that's definately the better one with the auricaps" after switching from Auricaps to Wimas. I heard no changes, it was all fine wine to me. There would have been no point in measuring the thd of the amps with different caps because the thd caused by good quality plastic film coupling caps in high impedance circuits between tubes is almost unmeasurable. "Burn in" when used about capacitors is another phrase which means that an owner has become used to the pain and expense of changeing coupling caps, and has mentally accepted them, like getting used to a new maid, even though she doesn't work any better than the old maid. The same things are said and done with cables and line conditioners and a few other absurd things that ppl like to suggest make a difference. Audiophiles like to credit themselves with super-abilities that us ordinary mortals do not possess. They place their hearing abilities above everyone else. In some cases, a few DO have better hearing, they understand words of opera and songs better than myself or anyone else and can hum along in perfect pitch, and their brain is obviously better connected to the music than most of the rest of the population. They even understand the purposes of the emotional intentions expressed in the music by the composer. But alas in simple AB tests where they are asked to identify equipment changes they don't fare much better than anyone else with supposedly normal hearing. I have no problem challenging their sacred cow beliefs so to find truth and thus be better equipped to build fine systems for such people. I have always enjoyed my above clients system with or without his Auricaps. He has an excellent turntable with hi-end MC which renders vinyl better than most SACD, CD DVD etc, and nevertheless has excellent silver disk replay systems. He is very happy and that's what counts. His system is one of very few I like listening to all night, and I would rate it better than my own, but mainly because the source devices, ie, silver disc and black disc devices are better than anyone else's. Maybe the caps make a difference, but I really doubt it, it could be blind insurance, "put in these acclaimed caps just in case.." Acclaimed by who? where does the BS start? with a bribe of someone in an audio magazine to give a good review? Usually when the guys I know here start raving about capacitor sound they do so WITHOUT A REFERENCE SYSTEM FOR COMPARISONS. So they just change something such as caps without comparing to a second reference system and say they hear better sound. But are they? What is the reality? I give them full permission to fool themselves, but none to fool me. I have two complete systems in my lounge, and many comparisons have been made. The change from having crossover points in a 3 way speaker system from 1kHz and 5 kHz to 250Hz and 3 kHz was astounding once I learnt about LCR theory, applied it, and built a decent measurement system. Later when i changed from cheap asian made speaker drivers to SEAS drivers there was another revelation, and I realised I'd wasted a lot of time on crap made in China. The tighter magnetic gap tolerances and cone materials in Norwegian speakers resulted in clearer and more precise accurtate music. Caps and cables have made imperceptible differences. I tried Allen Wright foil types of interconnects, twisted pairs, no change. Maybe the system was already as good as it was gonna get. I hear little difference between good class A tube amps and my class A mosfet amps. I thought I could here something different until I did the careful AB test, and asked a couple of other folks around..... Some SS amps are disgraceful though.....no doubt about that. Patrick Turner. No one showed me real measurements I wouldn't care if they are cleverly disguised inner chewing gum wrappers rolled into capacitor looking packages. I like how they sound. And, I know someone who has an Audio Precision system in his home. He gives me lots of good advice. He never mentions his toy gives him the insight of God Almighty. Perhaps he is too wise for such silly posturing Changing anything in my Audio Dungeon may affect my perception of Music. I may notice 8^0 Changing nothing in my Audio Dungeon might be good for earnest evaluations of components, but I Ching is a rascally Coyote ... I enjoy Music through cheap SS amps and cheap speakers, too. I do not think they sound the same as my fancy stuff, but, Music hath charms to soothe the savage technoid. I enjoy the Quest. I enjoy the comradery. I suffer the neo-wizards lightly. Forgive them, Father, they just like to talk, too ... just like me. Happy Ears! Al |
#254
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors, and Auricaps or others
Patrick Turner wrote in
: thd caused by good quality plastic film coupling caps in high impedance circuits between tubes is almost unmeasurable. Not just between tubes. My voltage-output DAC chip is coupled by Auricaps to the JFET buffer gates; I tried DC coupling by shifting the whole DAC power supply with a DC servo, and couldn't hear a difference. |
#255
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
" said:
Subject caps now have 300+ hours of playing time. They are very pleasant. Perhaps more so, as they "burn in", but, let us be fair, it is hard to do double blind testing of the same devices at different points in time. Maybe I am learning to appreciate them more! (But, I am doubtful I am learning anything, at my age ...) I once had a Wima MKP burn in on me. Turned out it had some 350 V across it, where only 250 was allowed. It lasted for a couple of hours, though. ;-) Otherwise, just enjoy what's in your amp, enjoy the tinkering, and forget about double blind testing and other scientific stuff, they only serve to take the pleasure out of your hobby. -- "Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks." |
#256
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.pro,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
Vishay talk ******** - was Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
Aristotle Eisenglas wrote: The UK lies 1st in the world murder league table, with 13.93 murders per 100,000 population. The USA, with far higher levels of firearms ownership, is 20th, with 9.31 per 100,000. These are Interpol's published figures, not mine. Whose post did you get that from ? The UK figure is wildly wrong of course. It's actually about 1.6 - a sixth of the US figure. Graham |
#257
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.pro,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
Vishay talk ******** - was Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
Eeyore wrote:
Aristotle Eisenglas wrote: The UK lies 1st in the world murder league table, with 13.93 murders per 100,000 population. The USA, with far higher levels of firearms ownership, is 20th, with 9.31 per 100,000. These are Interpol's published figures, not mine. Whose post did you get that from ? The UK figure is wildly wrong of course. It's actually about 1.6 - a sixth of the US figure. Graham You do realize you are talking to a software program, don't you? It's like those email trojans that pick phrases from your correspondence to send to victims in your address book. The random phrases makes it seem legit. The author is just trying it out to see if anyone falls for it. John also tried to argue with it. Regards, Mike Monett Antiviral, Antibacterial Silver Solution: http://silversol.freewebpage.org/index.htm SPICE Analysis of Crystal Oscillators: http://silversol.freewebpage.org/spice/xtal/clapp.htm Noise-Rejecting Wideband Sampler: http://www3.sympatico.ca/add.automat...pler/intro.htm |
#258
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.pro,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
Vishay talk ******** - was Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
Mike Monett wrote: Eeyore wrote: Aristotle Eisenglas wrote: The UK lies 1st in the world murder league table, with 13.93 murders per 100,000 population. The USA, with far higher levels of firearms ownership, is 20th, with 9.31 per 100,000. These are Interpol's published figures, not mine. Whose post did you get that from ? The UK figure is wildly wrong of course. It's actually about 1.6 - a sixth of the US figure. Graham You do realize you are talking to a software program, don't you? It's like those email trojans that pick phrases from your correspondence to send to victims in your address book. The random phrases makes it seem legit. The author is just trying it out to see if anyone falls for it. John also tried to argue with it. I was wondering if it was a bot or human actually. Time to look at the headers to see who's monkeying around. Graham |
#259
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.pro,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
Vishay talk ******** - was Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
Eeyore wrote: I was wondering if it was a bot or human actually. Time to look at the headers to see who's monkeying around. Graham Hi RATs! I wonder about some poster's CPU architecture, myself I got same value Obbligato Copper caps and put them in one channel. Used one of each brand in the new AC snubber circuit After a few weeks, I will see if my initial enthusiasm was just good vibes or actually good tunes ... Happy Ears! Al PS The Obbies cost $2.50 each, which is still out of this world for real professional engineers to spec, so my efforts are probably in vain, no matter what results I conjure up PPS Meanwhile, the Music is great ... |
#260
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.pro,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
Vishay talk ******** - was Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
On 4 Aug 2006 18:30:55 -0700, "
wrote: PPS Meanwhile, the Music is great ... Hey, Al. Glad to see you're still kickin'an'scratchin'. Missed the preceding discussion, but glad to hear from ya. Keep 'em flying, Chris Hornbeck |
#261
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.pro,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
Vishay talk ******** - was Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
|
#262
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.pro,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
Vishay talk ******** - was Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:29:16 -0000, Aristotle Eisenglas
Gave us: But I can tell you Do you always post 100% meaningless tripe? |
#263
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.pro,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
Vishay talk ******** - was Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors
krw wrote: In article , says... Eeyore wrote: Aristotle Eisenglas wrote: The UK lies 1st in the world murder league table, with 13.93 murders per 100,000 population. The USA, with far higher levels of firearms ownership, is 20th, with 9.31 per 100,000. These are Interpol's published figures, not mine. Whose post did you get that from ? The UK figure is wildly wrong of course. It's actually about 1.6 - a sixth of the US figure. Graham You do realize you are talking to a software program, don't you? A "software program". Ok, but Graham is too stupid to understand a troll. Hell, even the newsgroup drunk admitted to figuring it out after *four* posts. I figured it out just fine. I was curious to know where the quote had been lifted. I see no-one's owning up. Graham |
#264
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors, and Auricaps or others
Patrick Turner wrote:
" wrote: Phil wrote: No, these use tin, not aluminum. Phil Hi RATs! Subject caps now have 300+ hours of playing time. They are very pleasant. Perhaps more so, as they "burn in", but, let us be fair, it is hard to do double blind testing of the same devices at different points in time. Maybe I am learning to appreciate them more! (But, I am doubtful I am learning anything, at my age ...) I only bought these caps because a neighborhood old audio fool I have learned to believe over the years (and I trust everybody, but, believe nobody, except a few, on occasion...) bought some and was pleased. About the same kind of things get said about Auricaps, that after fitting them they "burn in" and begin to increase the quality of the sound in subjective ways. I replaced regular Wima polyprops in a client's preamp recently and did one channel before the other. We had an AB test with various music recordings in mono to find if he could choose which channel had the Auricaps and which one had the old Wimas ( which presumably were "burned in" ). He could not identify better than 50% of the time or say which channel was better, different, or had the Auricaps or Wimas. I switched between one channel and the other, asking him to identify where the "better" caps were or not, but he just couldn't pick it out accurately. I smiled when he said "that's definately the better one with the auricaps" after switching from Auricaps to Wimas. I heard no changes, it was all fine wine to me. There would have been no point in measuring the thd of the amps with different caps because the thd caused by good quality plastic film coupling caps in high impedance circuits between tubes is almost unmeasurable. Remember, Patrick, the A-B double blind test doesn't work in audio, because it fails to achieve its primary purpose, namely the "isolation of a variable." When you switch back and forth, you test two variables, not one, the capacitor, and the ability of the mind to remember audio passages. The Boulder amplifier company noted in a letter to the Audio Critic that when they changed a cap WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE, they would get tons of letters saying "What did you do, this is great?!", and yet they knew from actual trials that in AB comparisons, no one could distinguish between the old and new caps. The letters proved that (1) there was indeed an audible difference, and (2) that their AB trials -- some of them even double-blind -- were incapable of detecting this difference. The reason is obvious: By switching back and forth, you test not only the component, but also the mind's ability to "fill in the gaps," to remember, when hearing the old cap, the information that was learned when listening to the new cap. Perhaps by playing a section of music, say, 6 times in a row, and switching to the new cap at some point unknown to the listener (after the 2nd, OR 3rd, OR 4th, etc. time), you will find that the listener can identify when the switch was made, BUT, you can only play a given piece of music ONCE. Who knows? Perhaps by performing a test that, unlike the standard implementation of the double-blind test, you will be able to identify those componenets that truly are superior -- at least, in combination (use, as some have suggested, a Teflon first, a Mundorf last) -- and then make an amp that is far superior to anything you have made so far. However, note that when a change is indeed detectable, and initially preferable -- perhaps because it provides information unheard before -- that over the long term, a change from a good component to a bad component (or circuit) will result in a less satisfying system, which is not listened to or enjoyed as much, again, even though the change to that component or circuit INITIALLY seemed to be an improvement. Perhaps testing listener's reactions when going both from cap A to cap B, AND from cap B to cap A (using different selections for each test, of course, so that you don't wind up accidently, but also stupidly, SHIFTING from a test of the cap, to a test of the mind's ability to "fill in the gaps"), will help to identify the "better" changes. Phil "Burn in" when used about capacitors is another phrase which means that an owner has become used to the pain and expense of changeing coupling caps, and has mentally accepted them, like getting used to a new maid, even though she doesn't work any better than the old maid. The same things are said and done with cables and line conditioners and a few other absurd things that ppl like to suggest make a difference. Audiophiles like to credit themselves with super-abilities that us ordinary mortals do not possess. They place their hearing abilities above everyone else. In some cases, a few DO have better hearing, they understand words of opera and songs better than myself or anyone else and can hum along in perfect pitch, and their brain is obviously better connected to the music than most of the rest of the population. They even understand the purposes of the emotional intentions expressed in the music by the composer. But alas in simple AB tests where they are asked to identify equipment changes they don't fare much better than anyone else with supposedly normal hearing. I have no problem challenging their sacred cow beliefs so to find truth and thus be better equipped to build fine systems for such people. I have always enjoyed my above clients system with or without his Auricaps. He has an excellent turntable with hi-end MC which renders vinyl better than most SACD, CD DVD etc, and nevertheless has excellent silver disk replay systems. He is very happy and that's what counts. His system is one of very few I like listening to all night, and I would rate it better than my own, but mainly because the source devices, ie, silver disc and black disc devices are better than anyone else's. Maybe the caps make a difference, but I really doubt it, it could be blind insurance, "put in these acclaimed caps just in case.." Acclaimed by who? where does the BS start? with a bribe of someone in an audio magazine to give a good review? Usually when the guys I know here start raving about capacitor sound they do so WITHOUT A REFERENCE SYSTEM FOR COMPARISONS. So they just change something such as caps without comparing to a second reference system and say they hear better sound. But are they? What is the reality? I give them full permission to fool themselves, but none to fool me. I have two complete systems in my lounge, and many comparisons have been made. The change from having crossover points in a 3 way speaker system from 1kHz and 5 kHz to 250Hz and 3 kHz was astounding once I learnt about LCR theory, applied it, and built a decent measurement system. Later when i changed from cheap asian made speaker drivers to SEAS drivers there was another revelation, and I realised I'd wasted a lot of time on crap made in China. The tighter magnetic gap tolerances and cone materials in Norwegian speakers resulted in clearer and more precise accurtate music. Caps and cables have made imperceptible differences. I tried Allen Wright foil types of interconnects, twisted pairs, no change. Maybe the system was already as good as it was gonna get. I hear little difference between good class A tube amps and my class A mosfet amps. I thought I could here something different until I did the careful AB test, and asked a couple of other folks around..... Some SS amps are disgraceful though.....no doubt about that. Patrick Turner. No one showed me real measurements I wouldn't care if they are cleverly disguised inner chewing gum wrappers rolled into capacitor looking packages. I like how they sound. And, I know someone who has an Audio Precision system in his home. He gives me lots of good advice. He never mentions his toy gives him the insight of God Almighty. Perhaps he is too wise for such silly posturing Changing anything in my Audio Dungeon may affect my perception of Music. I may notice 8^0 Changing nothing in my Audio Dungeon might be good for earnest evaluations of components, but I Ching is a rascally Coyote ... I enjoy Music through cheap SS amps and cheap speakers, too. I do not think they sound the same as my fancy stuff, but, Music hath charms to soothe the savage technoid. I enjoy the Quest. I enjoy the comradery. I suffer the neo-wizards lightly. Forgive them, Father, they just like to talk, too ... just like me. Happy Ears! Al |
#265
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors, and Auricaps or others
"Phil" Remember, Patrick, the A-B double blind test doesn't work in audio, ** What absolute crap !! Such tests have been used by PROFESSIONALS in audio for many decades. When *real* differences exist, they get picked up by listeners very quickly in controlled A-B changeover tests. because it fails to achieve its primary purpose, namely the "isolation of a variable." When you switch back and forth, you test two variables, not one, the capacitor, and the ability of the mind to remember audio passages. ** Easily eliminated by making the A-B changeover *instant* and at the whim of the listener. Here is one very simply way to do it: http://sound.westhost.com/absw.htm The Boulder amplifier company noted in a letter to the Audio Critic .... ** ROTFL - what pathetic drivel. Some dopey, damn letter is not scientific evidence of any kind. Get real. ........... Phil |
#266
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors, and Auricaps or others
Phil wrote
Remember, Patrick, the A-B double blind test doesn't work in audio, because it fails to achieve its primary purpose, namely the "isolation of a variable." When you switch back and forth, you test two variables, not one, the capacitor, and the ability of the mind to remember audio passages. The Boulder amplifier company noted in a letter to the Audio Critic that when they changed a cap WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE, they would get tons of letters saying "What did you do, this is great?!", and yet they knew from actual trials that in AB comparisons, no one could distinguish between the old and new caps. The letters proved that (1) there was indeed an audible difference, and (2) that their AB trials -- some of them even double-blind -- were incapable of detecting this difference. The reason is obvious: By switching back and forth, you test not only the component, but also the mind's ability to "fill in the gaps," to remember, when hearing the old cap, the information that was learned when listening to the new cap. Perhaps by playing a section of music, say, 6 times in a row, and switching to the new cap at some point unknown to the listener (after the 2nd, OR 3rd, OR 4th, etc. time), you will find that the listener can identify when the switch was made, BUT, you can only play a given piece of music ONCE. Who knows? Perhaps by performing a test that, unlike the standard implementation of the double-blind test, you will be able to identify those componenets that truly are superior -- at least, in combination (use, as some have suggested, a Teflon first, a Mundorf last) -- and then make an amp that is far superior to anything you have made so far. However, note that when a change is indeed detectable, and initially preferable -- perhaps because it provides information unheard before -- that over the long term, a change from a good component to a bad component (or circuit) will result in a less satisfying system, which is not listened to or enjoyed as much, again, even though the change to that component or circuit INITIALLY seemed to be an improvement. Perhaps testing listener's reactions when going both from cap A to cap B, AND from cap B to cap A (using different selections for each test, of course, so that you don't wind up accidently, but also stupidly, SHIFTING from a test of the cap, to a test of the mind's ability to "fill in the gaps"), will help to identify the "better" changes. Phil Interesting, thanks. My point has always been that difference is not something we can hear, so "hear the difference" is not as simple as it may seem. We hear one sound, then we hear another. To arrive at a difference it is not only necessary to remember the first whilst listening to the second, but also to draw a conclusion from some process of comparison. Is it possible that someone of good hearing who enjoys music and has the appropriate memory, could fall at the last hurdle? Or are we all equally capable of making comparisons once we have two sets of data equally clearly in mind? cheers, Ian |
#267
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors, and Auricaps or others
Ian Iveson wrote: Interesting, thanks. Since you don't have a functioing brain I'm surprised you find anything 'interesting' at all. My point has always been that difference is not something we can hear, so "hear the difference" is not as simple as it may seem. Yet another clueless believer in the myth of being able to hear what can't be measured ? The difference is in the brain. Any drug induced experience wil rapidly explain that. The cheapest and most effective upgrade to any hi-fi is a spliff ! Graham |
#268
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors, and Auricaps or others
Phil wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: " wrote: Phil wrote: No, these use tin, not aluminum. Phil Hi RATs! Subject caps now have 300+ hours of playing time. They are very pleasant. Perhaps more so, as they "burn in", but, let us be fair, it is hard to do double blind testing of the same devices at different points in time. Maybe I am learning to appreciate them more! (But, I am doubtful I am learning anything, at my age ...) I only bought these caps because a neighborhood old audio fool I have learned to believe over the years (and I trust everybody, but, believe nobody, except a few, on occasion...) bought some and was pleased. About the same kind of things get said about Auricaps, that after fitting them they "burn in" and begin to increase the quality of the sound in subjective ways. I replaced regular Wima polyprops in a client's preamp recently and did one channel before the other. We had an AB test with various music recordings in mono to find if he could choose which channel had the Auricaps and which one had the old Wimas ( which presumably were "burned in" ). He could not identify better than 50% of the time or say which channel was better, different, or had the Auricaps or Wimas. I switched between one channel and the other, asking him to identify where the "better" caps were or not, but he just couldn't pick it out accurately. I smiled when he said "that's definately the better one with the auricaps" after switching from Auricaps to Wimas. I heard no changes, it was all fine wine to me. There would have been no point in measuring the thd of the amps with different caps because the thd caused by good quality plastic film coupling caps in high impedance circuits between tubes is almost unmeasurable. Remember, Patrick, the A-B double blind test doesn't work in audio, because it fails to achieve its primary purpose, namely the "isolation of a variable." When you switch back and forth, you test two variables, not one, the capacitor, and the ability of the mind to remember audio passages. The Boulder amplifier company noted in a letter to the Audio Critic that when they changed a cap WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE, they would get tons of letters saying "What did you do, this is great?!", and yet they knew from actual trials that in AB comparisons, no one could distinguish between the old and new caps. The letters proved that (1) there was indeed an audible difference, and (2) that their AB trials -- some of them even double-blind -- were incapable of detecting this difference. The reason is obvious: By switching back and forth, you test not only the component, but also the mind's ability to "fill in the gaps," to remember, when hearing the old cap, the information that was learned when listening to the new cap. Perhaps by playing a section of music, say, 6 times in a row, and switching to the new cap at some point unknown to the listener (after the 2nd, OR 3rd, OR 4th, etc. time), you will find that the listener can identify when the switch was made, BUT, you can only play a given piece of music ONCE. Who knows? Perhaps by performing a test that, unlike the standard implementation of the double-blind test, you will be able to identify those componenets that truly are superior -- at least, in combination (use, as some have suggested, a Teflon first, a Mundorf last) -- and then make an amp that is far superior to anything you have made so far. However, note that when a change is indeed detectable, and initially preferable -- perhaps because it provides information unheard before -- that over the long term, a change from a good component to a bad component (or circuit) will result in a less satisfying system, which is not listened to or enjoyed as much, again, even though the change to that component or circuit INITIALLY seemed to be an improvement. Perhaps testing listener's reactions when going both from cap A to cap B, AND from cap B to cap A (using different selections for each test, of course, so that you don't wind up accidently, but also stupidly, SHIFTING from a test of the cap, to a test of the mind's ability to "fill in the gaps"), will help to identify the "better" changes. Phil Thanks for your contribution about AB tests. AB tests are all I have and AB tests do indicate many listeners cannot discern which capacitors are being used in an amplifier. Its as simple as that, and further more I have changed from polypropylene to polyester or vice versa nobody has heard any difference to the sound. Next time you build a speaker crossover, change from a 5 uF bipolar electro to a plastic film cap and notice the complete lack of sound quality change. The sound is dertermined by factors of recording standards, room quality, speakers, source, amplifiers etc, and all the many variables within those categories People like to think they hear a difference between capacitors and cables but when challenged to proove they can detect any difference at all they routinely fail to hear anything better than 50% chance would predict. But where directed to instal whatever capacitors make people happy, then I always just instal them. The customer is king. Customers are not dumb, and generally can discern which system they may prefer. Unfortunately, I cannot give them the opportunity to auditon 20 different output transformers and that number of different amp topologies. I can only build amps with low noise, low thd, low Rout and wide bandwidth. I mostly generate sales because what I make sounds better in a total way to what they were used to. Many amp makers simply rely on getting the numbers right first. Tweaking around at the edges with capacitor brands and cables appears to actually do an extremely small amount of improvement to the sound. Many amp makers, perhaps myself included make such fine sounding gear that usually the changing of caps or cables is simply unecessary. I have no doubt that using the most expensive caps or cables constitutes very good engineering practice, and I go right along with anyone who says that brand X is darn good stuff. But should they allege brand X is better than brand Y, then sometimes I must humbly request proof of their allegations. Where they refuse such proof, and cite all the perils of AB testing and its spurious nature, then so be it, I leave them with their refusals and obfuscations and proceed to build amps without the benefit of their wisdoms, but with whatever parts they request, but otherwise to my own standards which work well and with complexities that are quite incomprehensible to the vast majority of the most seriously minded audiophiles. Its easy to make a triode amp that sounds blameless, regardless of what caps or cables are used. Patrick Turner. "Burn in" when used about capacitors is another phrase which means that an owner has become used to the pain and expense of changeing coupling caps, and has mentally accepted them, like getting used to a new maid, even though she doesn't work any better than the old maid. The same things are said and done with cables and line conditioners and a few other absurd things that ppl like to suggest make a difference. Audiophiles like to credit themselves with super-abilities that us ordinary mortals do not possess. They place their hearing abilities above everyone else. In some cases, a few DO have better hearing, they understand words of opera and songs better than myself or anyone else and can hum along in perfect pitch, and their brain is obviously better connected to the music than most of the rest of the population. They even understand the purposes of the emotional intentions expressed in the music by the composer. But alas in simple AB tests where they are asked to identify equipment changes they don't fare much better than anyone else with supposedly normal hearing. I have no problem challenging their sacred cow beliefs so to find truth and thus be better equipped to build fine systems for such people. I have always enjoyed my above clients system with or without his Auricaps. He has an excellent turntable with hi-end MC which renders vinyl better than most SACD, CD DVD etc, and nevertheless has excellent silver disk replay systems. He is very happy and that's what counts. His system is one of very few I like listening to all night, and I would rate it better than my own, but mainly because the source devices, ie, silver disc and black disc devices are better than anyone else's. Maybe the caps make a difference, but I really doubt it, it could be blind insurance, "put in these acclaimed caps just in case.." Acclaimed by who? where does the BS start? with a bribe of someone in an audio magazine to give a good review? Usually when the guys I know here start raving about capacitor sound they do so WITHOUT A REFERENCE SYSTEM FOR COMPARISONS. So they just change something such as caps without comparing to a second reference system and say they hear better sound. But are they? What is the reality? I give them full permission to fool themselves, but none to fool me. I have two complete systems in my lounge, and many comparisons have been made. The change from having crossover points in a 3 way speaker system from 1kHz and 5 kHz to 250Hz and 3 kHz was astounding once I learnt about LCR theory, applied it, and built a decent measurement system. Later when i changed from cheap asian made speaker drivers to SEAS drivers there was another revelation, and I realised I'd wasted a lot of time on crap made in China. The tighter magnetic gap tolerances and cone materials in Norwegian speakers resulted in clearer and more precise accurtate music. Caps and cables have made imperceptible differences. I tried Allen Wright foil types of interconnects, twisted pairs, no change. Maybe the system was already as good as it was gonna get. I hear little difference between good class A tube amps and my class A mosfet amps. I thought I could here something different until I did the careful AB test, and asked a couple of other folks around..... Some SS amps are disgraceful though.....no doubt about that. Patrick Turner. No one showed me real measurements I wouldn't care if they are cleverly disguised inner chewing gum wrappers rolled into capacitor looking packages. I like how they sound. And, I know someone who has an Audio Precision system in his home. He gives me lots of good advice. He never mentions his toy gives him the insight of God Almighty. Perhaps he is too wise for such silly posturing Changing anything in my Audio Dungeon may affect my perception of Music. I may notice 8^0 Changing nothing in my Audio Dungeon might be good for earnest evaluations of components, but I Ching is a rascally Coyote ... I enjoy Music through cheap SS amps and cheap speakers, too. I do not think they sound the same as my fancy stuff, but, Music hath charms to soothe the savage technoid. I enjoy the Quest. I enjoy the comradery. I suffer the neo-wizards lightly. Forgive them, Father, they just like to talk, too ... just like me. Happy Ears! Al |
#269
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors, and Auricaps or others
Patrick Turner wrote:
[snip] About the same kind of things get said about Auricaps, that after fitting them they "burn in" and begin to increase the quality of the sound in subjective ways. I replaced regular Wima polyprops in a client's preamp recently and did one channel before the other. We had an AB test with various music recordings in mono to find if he could choose which channel had the Auricaps and which one had the old Wimas ( which presumably were "burned in" ). He could not identify better than 50% of the time or say which channel was better, different, or had the Auricaps or Wimas. I switched between one channel and the other, asking him to identify where the "better" caps were or not, but he just couldn't pick it out accurately. I smiled when he said "that's definately the better one with the auricaps" after switching from Auricaps to Wimas. I heard no changes, it was all fine wine to me. There would have been no point in measuring the thd of the amps with different caps because the thd caused by good quality plastic film coupling caps in high impedance circuits between tubes is almost unmeasurable. Remember, Patrick, the A-B double blind test doesn't work in audio, because it fails to achieve its primary purpose, namely the "isolation of a variable." When you switch back and forth, you test two variables, not one, the capacitor, and the ability of the mind to remember audio passages. The Boulder amplifier company noted in a letter to the Audio Critic that when they changed a cap WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE, they would get tons of letters saying "What did you do, this is great?!", and yet they knew from actual trials that in AB comparisons, no one could distinguish between the old and new caps. The letters proved that (1) there was indeed an audible difference, and (2) that their AB trials -- some of them even double-blind -- were incapable of detecting this difference. The reason is obvious: By switching back and forth, you test not only the component, but also the mind's ability to "fill in the gaps," to remember, when hearing the old cap, the information that was learned when listening to the new cap. Perhaps by playing a section of music, say, 6 times in a row, and switching to the new cap at some point unknown to the listener (after the 2nd, OR 3rd, OR 4th, etc. time), you will find that the listener can identify when the switch was made, BUT, you can only play a given piece of music ONCE. Who knows? Perhaps by performing a test that, unlike the standard implementation of the double-blind test, you will be able to identify those componenets that truly are superior -- at least, in combination (use, as some have suggested, a Teflon first, a Mundorf last) -- and then make an amp that is far superior to anything you have made so far. However, note that when a change is indeed detectable, and initially preferable -- perhaps because it provides information unheard before -- that over the long term, a change from a good component to a bad component (or circuit) will result in a less satisfying system, which is not listened to or enjoyed as much, again, even though the change to that component or circuit INITIALLY seemed to be an improvement. Perhaps testing listener's reactions when going both from cap A to cap B, AND from cap B to cap A (using different selections for each test, of course, so that you don't wind up accidently, but also stupidly, SHIFTING from a test of the cap, to a test of the mind's ability to "fill in the gaps"), will help to identify the "better" changes. Phil Thanks for your contribution about AB tests. AB tests are all I have and AB tests do indicate many listeners cannot discern which capacitors are being used in an amplifier. Its as simple as that, and further more I have changed from polypropylene to polyester or vice versa nobody has heard any difference to the sound. Next time you build a speaker crossover, change from a 5 uF bipolar electro to a plastic film cap and notice the complete lack of sound quality change. Patrick, did you actually THINK about what I said? If I plug your ears with wax, and then test to see if you hear a difference between amps or speakers, would you consider that to be a valid test? I am not objecting to your using AB-tests, I am pointing out to you that using a TYPE of AB-test that causes, actually forces, the test to shift from being an accurate test of the actual differences between two components (this assumes that you have two components that really do have significant differences), to the ability of a listener's mind to "fill in the gaps" when a less revealing component is substituted, is stupid. Ignoring Phil Allison's useless, very old debating technique of throwing out a bunch of general criticisms without providing any supporting examples or facts (apparently he can say "that's stupid" and it mystically comes true! I wish he would mystically declare that I'm rich ....), look again at what the makers of Boulder amps said. They found the issue of the STANDARD AB-test confusing, because on the one hand they got your results -- caps A and B could not be distinguished in a normal AB test -- and yet another type of double-blind test, which automatically occured when they changed from using cap A to cap B in their amps without telling anyone, frequently resulted in a ton of letters saying how much the amp's sound had changed. Scientifically speaking, using the standard rules of logic, it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS from the experience of the people at Boulder that the standard AB test, which switches back and forth between two components when listening to a single piece of music, has a low level of resolution, period. Now, I THINK, given that the normal version of the AB test does allow the listener to memorize the music -- and this next conclusion is NOT something that absolutely MUST be true from the rules of logic -- that the reason for this drop in resolution is because the standard AB test actually winds up testing two variables, not the one it was designed for, namely the actual differences between components, AND the abilty of the mind to "hear" what it has remembered from previous runs, thereby overwhelming the actual data provided to the mind from the ear. In other words, we cannot ASSUME that the mind hears only the data stream that the ear is sending to it WHEN the mind has repeatedly heard both the current data stream (cap A) and a very similar data stream (cap B) before. Does anyone have an INTELLIGENT, scientifically HONEST and VALID objection to that statement? My proposed solution is simply an attempt, and I'm not certain that it will work, to greatly improve the resolution of the AB test by removing this second variable, by removing the ability of the mind to overide the data actually presented to the mind by the ear. This isn't a mindless "components do too sound different!" rant, it's an honest, serious attempt to provide an intellectually valid assessment of the needs and requirements of accurate testing. If AB tests that really do fully test the real differences between components show that no differences between film caps exist, then I will say that those of us who claim to hear such differences are indeed stupid. I won't be happy about it, but I WILL say it. Why don't you (and that uselss idiot, Allison) ask yourself a couple of simple questions? One, assume that there really are no differences between caps A and B (hell, just use the same cap in all six runs!); would my proposed test consistently show that differences do exist? I say no. Do you agree? Two, given two caps that really do have significant differences, will my proposed test have at least some chance of reliably detecting that difference? I say yes, although at this point, we don't know for certain whether it will have more, less, or the same sensitivity as the standard AB test. However, IF it turns out that my test does indeed have much greater resolving power than the standard AB test -- due to heretofore unrecognized defects in the current implementation of the standard AB test -- then wouldn't ANYONE designing audio products want to have access to those superior test results? Wouldn't you? Unless someone can prove, using the rules of logic, that my test is inferior to the standard AB test, we really won't know for sure until someone tries it. Phil The sound is dertermined by factors of recording standards, room quality, speakers, source, amplifiers etc, and all the many variables within those categories People like to think they hear a difference between capacitors and cables but when challenged to proove they can detect any difference at all they routinely fail to hear anything better than 50% chance would predict. But where directed to instal whatever capacitors make people happy, then I always just instal them. The customer is king. Customers are not dumb, and generally can discern which system they may prefer. Unfortunately, I cannot give them the opportunity to auditon 20 different output transformers and that number of different amp topologies. I can only build amps with low noise, low thd, low Rout and wide bandwidth. I mostly generate sales because what I make sounds better in a total way to what they were used to. Many amp makers simply rely on getting the numbers right first. Tweaking around at the edges with capacitor brands and cables appears to actually do an extremely small amount of improvement to the sound. Many amp makers, perhaps myself included make such fine sounding gear that usually the changing of caps or cables is simply unecessary. I have no doubt that using the most expensive caps or cables constitutes very good engineering practice, and I go right along with anyone who says that brand X is darn good stuff. But should they allege brand X is better than brand Y, then sometimes I must humbly request proof of their allegations. Where they refuse such proof, and cite all the perils of AB testing and its spurious nature, then so be it, I leave them with their refusals and obfuscations and proceed to build amps without the benefit of their wisdoms, but with whatever parts they request, but otherwise to my own standards which work well and with complexities that are quite incomprehensible to the vast majority of the most seriously minded audiophiles. Its easy to make a triode amp that sounds blameless, regardless of what caps or cables are used. Patrick Turner. "Burn in" when used about capacitors is another phrase which means that an owner has become used to the pain and expense of changeing coupling caps, and has mentally accepted them, like getting used to a new maid, even though she doesn't work any better than the old maid. The same things are said and done with cables and line conditioners and a few other absurd things that ppl like to suggest make a difference. Audiophiles like to credit themselves with super-abilities that us ordinary mortals do not possess. They place their hearing abilities above everyone else. In some cases, a few DO have better hearing, they understand words of opera and songs better than myself or anyone else and can hum along in perfect pitch, and their brain is obviously better connected to the music than most of the rest of the population. They even understand the purposes of the emotional intentions expressed in the music by the composer. But alas in simple AB tests where they are asked to identify equipment changes they don't fare much better than anyone else with supposedly normal hearing. I have no problem challenging their sacred cow beliefs so to find truth and thus be better equipped to build fine systems for such people. I have always enjoyed my above clients system with or without his Auricaps. He has an excellent turntable with hi-end MC which renders vinyl better than most SACD, CD DVD etc, and nevertheless has excellent silver disk replay systems. He is very happy and that's what counts. His system is one of very few I like listening to all night, and I would rate it better than my own, but mainly because the source devices, ie, silver disc and black disc devices are better than anyone else's. Maybe the caps make a difference, but I really doubt it, it could be blind insurance, "put in these acclaimed caps just in case.." Acclaimed by who? where does the BS start? with a bribe of someone in an audio magazine to give a good review? Usually when the guys I know here start raving about capacitor sound they do so WITHOUT A REFERENCE SYSTEM FOR COMPARISONS. So they just change something such as caps without comparing to a second reference system and say they hear better sound. But are they? What is the reality? I give them full permission to fool themselves, but none to fool me. I have two complete systems in my lounge, and many comparisons have been made. The change from having crossover points in a 3 way speaker system from 1kHz and 5 kHz to 250Hz and 3 kHz was astounding once I learnt about LCR theory, applied it, and built a decent measurement system. Later when i changed from cheap asian made speaker drivers to SEAS drivers there was another revelation, and I realised I'd wasted a lot of time on crap made in China. The tighter magnetic gap tolerances and cone materials in Norwegian speakers resulted in clearer and more precise accurtate music. Caps and cables have made imperceptible differences. I tried Allen Wright foil types of interconnects, twisted pairs, no change. Maybe the system was already as good as it was gonna get. I hear little difference between good class A tube amps and my class A mosfet amps. I thought I could here something different until I did the careful AB test, and asked a couple of other folks around..... Some SS amps are disgraceful though.....no doubt about that. Patrick Turner. No one showed me real measurements I wouldn't care if they are cleverly disguised inner chewing gum wrappers rolled into capacitor looking packages. I like how they sound. And, I know someone who has an Audio Precision system in his home. He gives me lots of good advice. He never mentions his toy gives him the insight of God Almighty. Perhaps he is too wise for such silly posturing Changing anything in my Audio Dungeon may affect my perception of Music. I may notice 8^0 Changing nothing in my Audio Dungeon might be good for earnest evaluations of components, but I Ching is a rascally Coyote ... I enjoy Music through cheap SS amps and cheap speakers, too. I do not think they sound the same as my fancy stuff, but, Music hath charms to soothe the savage technoid. I enjoy the Quest. I enjoy the comradery. I suffer the neo-wizards lightly. Forgive them, Father, they just like to talk, too ... just like me. Happy Ears! Al |
#270
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Teflon Film Tin Foil capacitors, and Auricaps or others
Phil wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: [snip] About the same kind of things get said about Auricaps, that after fitting them they "burn in" and begin to increase the quality of the sound in subjective ways. I replaced regular Wima polyprops in a client's preamp recently and did one channel before the other. We had an AB test with various music recordings in mono to find if he could choose which channel had the Auricaps and which one had the old Wimas ( which presumably were "burned in" ). He could not identify better than 50% of the time or say which channel was better, different, or had the Auricaps or Wimas. I switched between one channel and the other, asking him to identify where the "better" caps were or not, but he just couldn't pick it out accurately. I smiled when he said "that's definately the better one with the auricaps" after switching from Auricaps to Wimas. I heard no changes, it was all fine wine to me. There would have been no point in measuring the thd of the amps with different caps because the thd caused by good quality plastic film coupling caps in high impedance circuits between tubes is almost unmeasurable. Remember, Patrick, the A-B double blind test doesn't work in audio, because it fails to achieve its primary purpose, namely the "isolation of a variable." When you switch back and forth, you test two variables, not one, the capacitor, and the ability of the mind to remember audio passages. The Boulder amplifier company noted in a letter to the Audio Critic that when they changed a cap WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE, they would get tons of letters saying "What did you do, this is great?!", and yet they knew from actual trials that in AB comparisons, no one could distinguish between the old and new caps. The letters proved that (1) there was indeed an audible difference, and (2) that their AB trials -- some of them even double-blind -- were incapable of detecting this difference. The reason is obvious: By switching back and forth, you test not only the component, but also the mind's ability to "fill in the gaps," to remember, when hearing the old cap, the information that was learned when listening to the new cap. Perhaps by playing a section of music, say, 6 times in a row, and switching to the new cap at some point unknown to the listener (after the 2nd, OR 3rd, OR 4th, etc. time), you will find that the listener can identify when the switch was made, BUT, you can only play a given piece of music ONCE. Who knows? Perhaps by performing a test that, unlike the standard implementation of the double-blind test, you will be able to identify those componenets that truly are superior -- at least, in combination (use, as some have suggested, a Teflon first, a Mundorf last) -- and then make an amp that is far superior to anything you have made so far. However, note that when a change is indeed detectable, and initially preferable -- perhaps because it provides information unheard before -- that over the long term, a change from a good component to a bad component (or circuit) will result in a less satisfying system, which is not listened to or enjoyed as much, again, even though the change to that component or circuit INITIALLY seemed to be an improvement. Perhaps testing listener's reactions when going both from cap A to cap B, AND from cap B to cap A (using different selections for each test, of course, so that you don't wind up accidently, but also stupidly, SHIFTING from a test of the cap, to a test of the mind's ability to "fill in the gaps"), will help to identify the "better" changes. Phil Thanks for your contribution about AB tests. AB tests are all I have and AB tests do indicate many listeners cannot discern which capacitors are being used in an amplifier. Its as simple as that, and further more I have changed from polypropylene to polyester or vice versa nobody has heard any difference to the sound. Next time you build a speaker crossover, change from a 5 uF bipolar electro to a plastic film cap and notice the complete lack of sound quality change. Patrick, did you actually THINK about what I said? If I plug your ears with wax, and then test to see if you hear a difference between amps or speakers, would you consider that to be a valid test? Of course not. I am not objecting to your using AB-tests, I am pointing out to you that using a TYPE of AB-test that causes, actually forces, the test to shift from being an accurate test of the actual differences between two components (this assumes that you have two components that really do have significant differences), to the ability of a listener's mind to "fill in the gaps" when a less revealing component is substituted, is stupid. I tested Auricaps A-B to see if any detectable difference could be detected at all. None was detected better than chance. The two of us at the test wanted to know if the Auricaps were detectably " better sounding" than Wimas. I heard no changes whatsoever, and I don't care if the makers of Wima and Auricap and their groupies think I am cloth eared. The other guy was asked simply which he liked better about 10 times with a range of repeated music tracks and I kept a tally of what he thought sounded better. I was the only one making the switch from the Wimas to Auricaps, and recording his reaction to the different capacitors. It was 50-50 score for Wima and Auricaps. There was no attempt to force anyone to do anything or to proove that A-B tests become a test of humans rather than the gear being compared. Of course it IS a test of humans. Humans go around saying A is audibly better than B. I ask then to sit in the hot seat and have a listen to A and then B, without knowing whether it is A or B. Sometimes they will say there's a big difference when you have not changed from A to B. AB tests make fools of so many people and some are in the high places of audiophool-dom, and some are miffed that anyone may challenge their private theories about what sounds better, and proove they have no clue really. I've seen many a dude create arguments to denigrate simple A-B tests to wheedle out of having to put up or shut up. Where some differences are found, its often a case of its all good wine, and a cabernet sauvignon is just different to a shiraz, not necessarily better or worse. Ignoring Phil Allison's useless, very old debating technique of throwing out a bunch of general criticisms without providing any supporting examples or facts (apparently he can say "that's stupid" and it mystically comes true! I wish he would mystically declare that I'm rich ...), look again at what the makers of Boulder amps said. They found the issue of the STANDARD AB-test confusing, because on the one hand they got your results -- caps A and B could not be distinguished in a normal AB test -- and yet another type of double-blind test, which automatically occured when they changed from using cap A to cap B in their amps without telling anyone, frequently resulted in a ton of letters saying how much the amp's sound had changed. I have changed amps surrepticiously from an 85-85 class A tube amp to 2 x 300W SS with a group of 4 audio guys one evening here and NONE noticed any change. Both amps sounded fine, maybe because they were made by the same guy with the same eye for detail about what was important to get right. Scientifically speaking, using the standard rules of logic, it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS from the experience of the people at Boulder that the standard AB test, which switches back and forth between two components when listening to a single piece of music, has a low level of resolution, period. Well yes, unless large differences in the gear are present. Now, I THINK, given that the normal version of the AB test does allow the listener to memorize the music -- and this next conclusion is NOT something that absolutely MUST be true from the rules of logic -- that the reason for this drop in resolution is because the standard AB test actually winds up testing two variables, not the one it was designed for, namely the actual differences between components, AND the abilty of the mind to "hear" what it has remembered from previous runs, thereby overwhelming the actual data provided to the mind from the ear. In other words, we cannot ASSUME that the mind hears only the data stream that the ear is sending to it WHEN the mind has repeatedly heard both the current data stream (cap A) and a very similar data stream (cap B) before. Does anyone have an INTELLIGENT, scientifically HONEST and VALID objection to that statement? AB tests are FLAMBOOZLING TO MANY PEOPLE. OK, so darn what? My proposed solution is simply an attempt, and I'm not certain that it will work, to greatly improve the resolution of the AB test by removing this second variable, by removing the ability of the mind to overide the data actually presented to the mind by the ear. This isn't a mindless "components do too sound different!" rant, it's an honest, serious attempt to provide an intellectually valid assessment of the needs and requirements of accurate testing. If AB tests that really do fully test the real differences between components show that no differences between film caps exist, then I will say that those of us who claim to hear such differences are indeed stupid. I won't be happy about it, but I WILL say it. Why don't you (and that uselss idiot, Allison) ask yourself a couple of simple questions? One, assume that there really are no differences between caps A and B (hell, just use the same cap in all six runs!); would my proposed test consistently show that differences do exist? I say no. Do you agree? Two, given two caps that really do have significant differences, will my proposed test have at least some chance of reliably detecting that difference? I say yes, although at this point, we don't know for certain whether it will have more, less, or the same sensitivity as the standard AB test. However, IF it turns out that my test does indeed have much greater resolving power than the standard AB test -- due to heretofore unrecognized defects in the current implementation of the standard AB test -- then wouldn't ANYONE designing audio products want to have access to those superior test results? Wouldn't you? Unless someone can prove, using the rules of logic, that my test is inferior to the standard AB test, we really won't know for sure until someone tries it. Gee Zuss! Such logic I ain't ever had to wade through before. I just ask Joe, which do you like better, A or B?, and switch a few times on the same bit of music. Joe anwers to the question about 10 times where I try deliberately to trick him, and if the results proove he did no better than guess, then not much difference exists. Sometimes its a chalk and cheese process, say you change between different 6CG7 brands in a line stage without NFB. Inexplicable sonic changes are heard, thd is below 0.02%, so distortion isn't the reason, all tubes measure about the same...... I've witnessed 4 guys all agreeing that tube A was far inferior to tube B, where B was NOS Siemans 6CG7, and A was a new Sovtek 6CG7. Maybe the Sovtek would mature like a fine wine with some age. Who knows? repeating the test months later after ageing the poor tube in a test circuit might improve the sound. Some AB tests raise more questions than can be answered, but the real audiophile is nervous and even neurotic about component choice, and is always worrying about what choice sounds better. He does constant AB tests, and he worries how time is affecting his gear, and the real wear on his system is due to so many changes. They don't just set it up and listen for 20 years. They are always thinking it could be better. Well sometimes their tweaking leads to a downgrading unless thay have two systems which they compare so to be able to leap frog the quality of one over the other. That was the method I chose to build fine sounding speakers. Patrick Turner. Phil The sound is dertermined by factors of recording standards, room quality, speakers, source, amplifiers etc, and all the many variables within those categories People like to think they hear a difference between capacitors and cables but when challenged to proove they can detect any difference at all they routinely fail to hear anything better than 50% chance would predict. But where directed to instal whatever capacitors make people happy, then I always just instal them. The customer is king. Customers are not dumb, and generally can discern which system they may prefer. Unfortunately, I cannot give them the opportunity to auditon 20 different output transformers and that number of different amp topologies. I can only build amps with low noise, low thd, low Rout and wide bandwidth. I mostly generate sales because what I make sounds better in a total way to what they were used to. Many amp makers simply rely on getting the numbers right first. Tweaking around at the edges with capacitor brands and cables appears to actually do an extremely small amount of improvement to the sound. Many amp makers, perhaps myself included make such fine sounding gear that usually the changing of caps or cables is simply unecessary. I have no doubt that using the most expensive caps or cables constitutes very good engineering practice, and I go right along with anyone who says that brand X is darn good stuff. But should they allege brand X is better than brand Y, then sometimes I must humbly request proof of their allegations. Where they refuse such proof, and cite all the perils of AB testing and its spurious nature, then so be it, I leave them with their refusals and obfuscations and proceed to build amps without the benefit of their wisdoms, but with whatever parts they request, but otherwise to my own standards which work well and with complexities that are quite incomprehensible to the vast majority of the most seriously minded audiophiles. Its easy to make a triode amp that sounds blameless, regardless of what caps or cables are used. Patrick Turner. "Burn in" when used about capacitors is another phrase which means that an owner has become used to the pain and expense of changeing coupling caps, and has mentally accepted them, like getting used to a new maid, even though she doesn't work any better than the old maid. The same things are said and done with cables and line conditioners and a few other absurd things that ppl like to suggest make a difference. Audiophiles like to credit themselves with super-abilities that us ordinary mortals do not possess. They place their hearing abilities above everyone else. In some cases, a few DO have better hearing, they understand words of opera and songs better than myself or anyone else and can hum along in perfect pitch, and their brain is obviously better connected to the music than most of the rest of the population. They even understand the purposes of the emotional intentions expressed in the music by the composer. But alas in simple AB tests where they are asked to identify equipment changes they don't fare much better than anyone else with supposedly normal hearing. I have no problem challenging their sacred cow beliefs so to find truth and thus be better equipped to build fine systems for such people. I have always enjoyed my above clients system with or without his Auricaps. He has an excellent turntable with hi-end MC which renders vinyl better than most SACD, CD DVD etc, and nevertheless has excellent silver disk replay systems. He is very happy and that's what counts. His system is one of very few I like listening to all night, and I would rate it better than my own, but mainly because the source devices, ie, silver disc and black disc devices are better than anyone else's. Maybe the caps make a difference, but I really doubt it, it could be blind insurance, "put in these acclaimed caps just in case.." Acclaimed by who? where does the BS start? with a bribe of someone in an audio magazine to give a good review? Usually when the guys I know here start raving about capacitor sound they do so WITHOUT A REFERENCE SYSTEM FOR COMPARISONS. So they just change something such as caps without comparing to a second reference system and say they hear better sound. But are they? What is the reality? I give them full permission to fool themselves, but none to fool me. I have two complete systems in my lounge, and many comparisons have been made. The change from having crossover points in a 3 way speaker system from 1kHz and 5 kHz to 250Hz and 3 kHz was astounding once I learnt about LCR theory, applied it, and built a decent measurement system. Later when i changed from cheap asian made speaker drivers to SEAS drivers there was another revelation, and I realised I'd wasted a lot of time on crap made in China. The tighter magnetic gap tolerances and cone materials in Norwegian speakers resulted in clearer and more precise accurtate music. Caps and cables have made imperceptible differences. I tried Allen Wright foil types of interconnects, twisted pairs, no change. Maybe the system was already as good as it was gonna get. I hear little difference between good class A tube amps and my class A mosfet amps. I thought I could here something different until I did the careful AB test, and asked a couple of other folks around..... Some SS amps are disgraceful though.....no doubt about that. Patrick Turner. No one showed me real measurements I wouldn't care if they are cleverly disguised inner chewing gum wrappers rolled into capacitor looking packages. I like how they sound. And, I know someone who has an Audio Precision system in his home. He gives me lots of good advice. He never mentions his toy gives him the insight of God Almighty. Perhaps he is too wise for such silly posturing Changing anything in my Audio Dungeon may affect my perception of Music. I may notice 8^0 Changing nothing in my Audio Dungeon might be good for earnest evaluations of components, but I Ching is a rascally Coyote ... I enjoy Music through cheap SS amps and cheap speakers, too. I do not think they sound the same as my fancy stuff, but, Music hath charms to soothe the savage technoid. I enjoy the Quest. I enjoy the comradery. I suffer the neo-wizards lightly. Forgive them, Father, they just like to talk, too ... just like me. Happy Ears! Al |
#271
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Allison wrote:
Phil Allison wrote:
(pile of sickening and INSANE verbal diarrhoea... You are one schizophrenic, pseudo-scientific, lying, criminal PITA ****ing NUT CASE. Go drop dead.I like to experiment with SEPTIC ****! preamp circuits in old clean tone amps by placing a 25uf/25v cap across the cathode resistor of a preamp tube. In a 12AX7, the cathodes are pins 3 and 8.SUCKMYWARTyCHEESEDICK! If you look at the socket, those pins will go to a cathode resistor whose value could range from 470 ohms to 4.7K. YOU****SNIFFINGBABYHUMPER!! If that ASININE YANK SCUMBAG! resistor does not have a bypass cap across it, it's considered "unbypassed", and the tube will not supply full gain. The HAIRY NIPPLED **** FACE! size of the cap will effect the frequency response of the gain. A smaller cap will have more highs. TEABAGGED INFANT FELCHING BALLSUCK!!! The most common caps measure 25uf @ 25v. If an amp is too boomy-sounding (too much bass), try bypassing the cathode resistor on the preamp tube with a 10uf, 5uf or even a 1uf. IMPACTED PIG PENIS SUCKMONKEY!The smaller the value, the more it will tame low-end response and accentuate high end. If there are multiple gain stages, check to se whether the others are bypassed. GREASE FARTING SKIDMARK LICKER!!! You could improve gain by 10db or more merely COCKCHEESE GARGLER! by adding a couple of bypass caps! When adding the cap, remember -its negative side always goes to ground, so the positive TWISTED SMELLY SACK SUCKING CLAUDEL! always goes to the tube's cathode. Electronically, this will put the cap directly across the resistor. Note: Information w/ substance from Gerald Weber: VG 1/06 pg. 108. Article: From Dull to Full". mvm One important caveat to the forgoing...ITCHY DICKPLUG SUCKWEASLE! The phase inverter DUMB**** MUSO! tube shouldn't be included when adding bypass ******** GROPER FIST ****ASS!! caps to the circuit. As you know, this baby delivers signal to the output tubes and is PITA SEPTIC **** DISCHARGE!! usually closest to PILES OF ASININE CRAPOLOGY!! them. It's part of the design to have unbypassed cathode resistors here, so stay away from HOPE YOUR TINY BALLS ROT OFF!! adding one here YOU ANENCEPHALIC VERMIN CRACK!! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Comparing quality on vinyl with Digital | High End Audio | |||
MKT foil capacitors | High End Audio | |||
FS- AXIAL POLYPROPYLENE CAPACITORS | Marketplace | |||
FS- RADIAL POLYPROPYLENE CAPACITORS | Marketplace | |||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something) | High End Audio |