[Paul[_11_]]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:35:17 -0500, Wink wrote:

I happened to snag a set of 63V/10,000ufd FK BG caps for my monoblock
.....snip! ...stuff deleted
Not much to go on here, but thought I would throw this one out to you
guys. Thanks again...
Dave

You should check your amp with a square wave, at least several
KHz, and determine if you are getting transient problems from
capacitor/wiring series inductance and/or current loops inducing
voltages in your circuitry.
The first can be reduced by putting low-Z caps (1-10 uF
polypropylene snubber types) across your rough supply. Location is
critical. Should be close to the output devices. Minimize loops!
The second effect can be reduced by limiting the loop area defined
by your supply/output wiring. Large loops can induce voltages in other
traces, and give you all kinds of weird artifacts. If your amp can
slew very fast, this can be a problem. It can get bad enough to start
oscillations, but in my experience it usually causes overshoot or
ringing on a sqare wave. Your circuit board layout, and wiring to your
caps can be a problem. Keep power supply leads, and capacitor leads
adjacent so that much of the magnetic field is cancelled. Normally, in
audio this isn't a big deal, but the output can run pretty high
current at a high di/dt (rate of current change), and this can cause
induced voltages in nearby wiring.
One of the tests I run an amp through, is to inject a white noise
signal hipassed at a cutoff of 20KHz. The filter is about 6th order.
At zero to full power output, there should be no audible sound coming
from your speakers (it's all above your hearing limit). Amplifiers
that have problems will generate frying noises or other odd sounds.
These usually are a result of excessive feedback causing distortion
when the amp slews. The nice part of this test is you need no
equipment other than the signal source and your own ears.
There are a few tricks for placing compensation components in the
circuit to reduce overload effects during transient conditions. They
may reduce the bandwidth (of course, never below 20KHz), but will give
your amp much better performance under difficult signals.
I have A/B'd an amp that had this problem (A was the original, B was
one modified to eliminate the transient distortion). To be honest, I
couldn't tell the difference. It was blatantly obvious with a square
wave and 'scope.
So..... apart from your rather biased hearing tests (with a single
amp, it is pretty well impossible to have a blind A/B test), have you
made any measurements?

Paul

[Wink]

Regarding Cap voltage rating:

How many commercial designs use caps whose voltage rating is
essentially equal to the Rail Voltage? Maybe many, or most.

I doubt it.

[Wink]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:13:07 GMT, Jerry Peters
wrote:

Wink wrote:
A glorious response. Curious in light of previous helpful and cordial
ones, free of your compulsive cruelty.

I'm not an objectivist Arny. I've tried to be, the scientist within
compels it; but amps sound different, quite different frequently.

ICs and cables: I've been a maximum skeptic for decades, using
generics and zip cord. But recent experiments have shown that these
items do indeed sound different, frequently meaningfully. It is
distressing, looking for the physics, and the yet the conclusion is
inescapable.

I'm convinced that, though objectivists do not necessarily have
inferior ears, they may have ears which are insensitive to things the
subjectivists detect. Like my wife who can distinguish colors that
look utterly the same to me.

Actually there is a possible scientific explanation for this: a small
number of women can actually see far more colors than the usual 16
million or so. I forget the details, but their retinal structure is
actually different.

Jerry

Yes, of course. I don't think I've implied there isn't a scientific
explanation for the color perception differential.

[Wink]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:05:26 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Jerry Peters wrote:

Wink wrote:
A glorious response. Curious in light of previous helpful and cordial
ones, free of your compulsive cruelty.

I'm not an objectivist Arny. I've tried to be, the scientist within
compels it; but amps sound different, quite different frequently.

ICs and cables: I've been a maximum skeptic for decades, using
generics and zip cord. But recent experiments have shown that these
items do indeed sound different, frequently meaningfully. It is
distressing, looking for the physics, and the yet the conclusion is
inescapable.

I'm convinced that, though objectivists do not necessarily have
inferior ears, they may have ears which are insensitive to things the
subjectivists detect. Like my wife who can distinguish colors that
look utterly the same to me.

Actually there is a possible scientific explanation for this: a small
number of women can actually see far more colors than the usual 16
million or so. I forget the details, but their retinal structure is
actually different.

Precisely. If you actually look in enough detail, you'll find the
scientific exaplanation. The audio subjectivists don't even try looking
though. They see and hear only what they want to believe. It's like a
religion.

Graham
This may be true of some subjectivists, but surely there is a
continuum. Give me the science every time, if it's been formulated.

I use extension cord for cable. Perhaps that will glean some points.

[Wink]

Yeah, but 'ordinary' capacitors for a few bucks each don't 'sound as
good'. $200 caps--identical in every way, but for appearance and price
tag--'sound' better...or so the OP would have us believe.

No -- I've not claimed this. I've been a long BG skeptic but decided
to roll the dice. Unusual for me. If they make no substantial
improvement, I'll sell and move to something more conventional.

I like Rod Elliott's idea of multiple paralleled smaller caps.

I must say, I can't find an easy segue between corner rocks and wooden
knobs to cap design.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:35:17 -0500, Wink wrote:

I happened to snag a set of 63V/10,000ufd FK BG caps for my monoblock
PSUs. The rail voltage with stock Hafler xmfr is ~ 63 Volts so to
avoid exploding my $$ BGs, I'm using a Variac to reduce the AC mains
input for a rail Voltage of ~ 53 volts until I replace the Hafler
trafos with lower sec V Toroidals. [Refer to "Hafler Monoblock
Project..." thread]

The mystery is the sound, which is sort of peculiar. Hard to explain,
but what is the source? Of course there are 3 variables that have been
changed: PSU caps from Chemicons to BGs, lower rail voltage (well
within the operating range of the PA-3D driver board), and inclusion
of the Variac twixt house mains and both amps.

Should I expect some odd interaction between the Variac and existing
Hafler power xfmr? Nothing obvious comes to mind. Running stone cold,
the 1500VA, Powerstat Variac has plenty of capacity.

Not much to go on here, but thought I would throw this one out to you
guys. Thanks again...

Lots of posts, and I've skipped a lot because of the hostility
factor, so please forgive if I'm redundant:

First, don't worry too much about the Variac. It's just not the
kind of thing that ya can hear easily. Yeah, it might make the
loudest peak clip a dB sooner. Yeah, so what? It's loud; it's clipped;
tell me something new. Like that.

So, downstream of the main HV supplies, which feed the output stages
directly, are regulators for the earlier stages. Have you confirmed
that these regulators are being fed nourishing voltages? Forgive me
if this seems too "basic", but this is Usenet, and all assumptions
are chumptions, at this point.

All good fortune, and please keep us updated,

Chris Hornbeck

[Wink]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:01:52 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



jakdedert wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
jakdedert wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Wink wrote:

Why did you change the caps?
When the stock Hafler 10 kufd Sangamos started to die several years
ago, I replaced them with Musical Concepts 80V, 27 kufd LC-200s made
by Chemi-con, and noticed immediately a deadening of the sound.
Duh....

Why the duh ?

Duh = 'obvious'. If the caps were actually 'dying', then replacing them
would improve the sound...same point you made below.

'Improve' depends on subjectivity. Make different for sure. It seems the OP felt it was
inferior despite the fact, that's how the amps were designed.

However his later comments make me think he may have disturbed something else if the sound
really deteriorated badly.

Graham

No -- no large scale deterioration. Nothing was disturbed. The bass
started to lose control on certain inputs at high spls. The rest of
the spectrum seemed unaffected. It is curious, and it's been a while.
I didn't document the failure scenario.

[Wink]

His later comments make me think he wouldn't know if his amp was bad or
good. The only subjective measurement unit he's presented (beside ps
voltage) is US Dollars ($). More$ = Better sound. Many more$ = Much
Better Sound.

jak

No -- All I've described is that I acquired BG filter caps. Did you
even read my posts, or is this simply a reflexive response?

[Wink]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:14:57 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Wink wrote:

Why does that not make sense to 'audiophiles'...and by what objective
measurement were the originals starting to 'die'?
Loss of bass control. Serious enough to be quite objective. I
initially thought the surrounds on the woofers were coming unglued.

That sounds like something more serious. Do you really know what you're
doing poking around inside amps ?
Nope, it was the caps. Changing them completely eliminated the
problem.


What ELSE did you touch (possibly inadvertantly).
Well, I built the amps from kits almost 30 years ago, then applied
Hillig's fairly complex GX mod in the late 80s. They worked perfectly
for 20+ years as such. In the mean time I applied the Galo/Jung Pooge
5 mods to a Phillips DAC 960, built multiple line stages and speakers
including ESLs, perforated and wire stator types.


Seriously, if the OP wants to use those 'bargain' $800 caps, perhaps he
should build an entire new pair of blocs with those and the new
transformers he's having custom built...and sell the originals. There
are plenty of plans on the Web. Of course it sounds like money is not
an object, so perhaps he could use the old ones as doorstops.
This is what I've done Jak, using John Hillig's driver cards. The caps
and xmfrs are the final additions. All that remains of the original
220's are chassis, mosfets, and xfmrs.

Why on earth are you wasting your time mucking about with an ancient amp ?
Technology has moved on although I confess I have a soft spot for mosfet
amps. When really well designed and set up they have miniscule (high order)
crossover distortion compared to bipolars. Indeed one of my own mosfet
designs had vanishingly low THD and most of what could be measured was 2nd
harmonic which is sonically the least intrusive.

Do you even read my posts? I've retained the 134/49 mosfet pairs,
chassis, and xfmr. It isn't a Hafler anymore. No plans for bipolars,
though I've ordered double current Exicons.

Ancient amps: Have you heard a Marantz 8b, or a Futterman? The old
Pass A-40 still sounds pretty good, better than his Aleph 30.

[Wink]

A new stock DH-200 or 220 doesn't sound dead.

Neither does a used one in good shape with commodity power supply caps @
$10 each.
That's brilliant

Science has the potential to have all the answers. It
doesn't follow that is has all the answers currently.

But audio isn't rocket science and it isn't high energy physics, either.
Really? Explain.

We've got all the answers we need to understand why things sound different.
I hope that is the case.
The trough job is getting true believers to do proper listening tests.
Let the true believers believe, and continue with your pot metal ears.
I think YOU think you know what you're talking about, but
really don't.

Prove it.
Can't, a perception.
And I suspect you know this.

Doesn't follow,
Logically, you mean? Of course not. Another perception.

[Wink]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:08:40 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Wink wrote:

A new stock DH-200 or 220 doesn't sound dead.

We only have your word for that. When did you last hear one in *ORIGINAL* condition
with PSU capacitors at their orignal value ?


Science has the potential to have all the answers. It doesn't follow
that is has all the answers currently.

In this instance science most certainly DOES have the answer.
Of course, it frequently does.

Your old caps had reduced capacitance through aging. That's why new ones of the
correct originally specified value sounded different. That would be the case
regardless of the brand name on the can.
Yes, they would sound different regardless of "the brand name on the
can". But would they sound moribund??

Are you just randonly typing? This is ridiculous.

[Wink]

Wink wrote:

I think YOU think you know what you're talking about, but really
don't. And I suspect you know this.

I'm a pro-audio designer who's worked with some of the best in the busines and I'm
something of an expert about amplifier design.
Pro-Audio designer. Mmmmm.... Do you have a 30 db notch at 4 or 6 khz
from noise induced hearing loss? Do you fancy the Benchmark DAC 1?

[Wink]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:23:08 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Wink wrote:
A new stock DH-200 or 220 doesn't sound dead.

Science has the potential to have all the answers. It doesn't follow
that is has all the answers currently.

I think YOU think you know what you're talking about, but really
don't. And I suspect you know this.

I suspect you pay a lot of money for nothing. Probably you have a lot
of money to spend on nothing. Fine. You just won't get much sympathy
for snake-oil hawkers in a forum of objective audio (mostly) professionals.
Objective audio pros: Exactly why I posted the original question here,
and actually did get a few sound responses. Thanks to Mark, Dave and
Kevin.

You've taken the word (or falling for the BS...your choice) of people
who are simply taking your money and laughing behind your back.
You've no idea the decision making process that lead to the BG
purchase.

Then
you come here and try to convince us that the Emperor's New Outfit is so
exquisite
Wrong. I've not said a word about how the BGs sound. Wait... yes I
did: "Peculiar" in the original post, wrt to the Variac arrangement.
Doesn't quite equate to "exquisite", does it?

[Wink]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:00:37 GMT, dizzy wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

wrote:

Seems like a whole lot of time, effort, and money being spent to run a
lower output stage voltage. To each his own.

It's completely NUTS.

Quite bizarre, to spend all that money on caps that are so incorrect
that he thinks he needs variacs...

From the original post: "...I'm using a Variac to reduce the AC mains
input for a rail Voltage of ~ 53 volts until I replace the Hafler
trafos with lower sec V Toroidals."

It looks like 90% of you do not actually read posts. Instills a lot of
confidence in your technical conclusions.

[Wink]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:15:50 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Wink wrote:

Seems like a whole lot of time, effort, and money being spent to run a
lower output stage voltage. To each his own.

63 V BGs were available for a deal, albeit a relative deal -- no
question.

80 V versions are gone. This is the only reason I'm lowering the rail
voltage.

They'll be totally fine at 63V. At least you can then rule out bias
variations caused by the lower voltage operation.
Current flow in the main rails has not changed at all with the cap
change and AC mains thus DC rails voltage reduction -- 355 ma at 63 -
53 volts. In fact, current (measured at the rails fuse point) starts
to plateau noticebly around 60-70 Vac mains input.

Are you thinking about more than current flow through the output
devices, perhaps the biasing on driver board elements? Interesting if
so, which did not occur to me.

Dave

[Wink]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:50:54 GMT, Paul wrote:

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:35:17 -0500, Wink wrote:

I happened to snag a set of 63V/10,000ufd FK BG caps for my monoblock
....snip! ...stuff deleted
Not much to go on here, but thought I would throw this one out to you
guys. Thanks again...
Dave

You should check your amp with a square wave, at least several
KHz, and determine if you are getting transient problems from
capacitor/wiring series inductance and/or current loops inducing
voltages in your circuitry.
Yes, I did fairly extensive square wave testing with the Chemicons at
63 V, then BGs at 53 V. Amp was biased at 355 ma in both cases.

The results were exactly the same, to the extent that my eye can
resolve. Pix are actually posted in alt.binaries.pictures.misc with
title "Monoblock squarewave". The results are normal. Some rounding at
10 khz, but others in this group who've seen them have pronounced the
results as good. I think the rounding suggests a less than stellar
slew rate.

I should say at this point that I seem to have solved the "peculiar"
sound problem: Speaker cables. Being monoblocks, I am able to use very
short, ~ 10" 14# zip cord as cable, biwired. I switched those out for
my "reference standard" 6 foot, 16# Lowes extension cord cables
(bi-wired) and the problem dissappeared. A dramatic result,
completely unanticipated. When a result is so unanticipated, I rate
it as significant despite the lack of rigorous test methods.

Using that Lowes cable, my BG equipped monoblocks and Clayton S-40
sound very similar. Perhaps I should have a scope look at those 2
cable configs.

The first can be reduced by putting low-Z caps (1-10 uF
polypropylene snubber types) across your rough supply. Location is
critical. Should be close to the output devices. Minimize loops!
The Musical Concepts driver cards are equipped with 470 ufd
de-coupling caps close to the location you recommend. I will check
for snubbers in this area. (I hope no one reads this but I'm also
replacing those decouplers with 100 ufd BG FKs at the direction of
John Hillig, who doesn't stock them btw.)

Of course, I'm not seeing transients currently. I'll have to check
this again for the sake of rigor. The waveform did show the expected
damped ringing with 2.2 ufd across the 8 ohm resistive dummy load.

The second effect can be reduced by limiting the loop area defined
by your supply/output wiring. Large loops can induce voltages in other
traces, and give you all kinds of weird artifacts. If your amp can
slew very fast, this can be a problem. It can get bad enough to start
oscillations, but in my experience it usually causes overshoot or
ringing on a sqare wave. Your circuit board layout, and wiring to your
caps can be a problem. Keep power supply leads, and capacitor leads
adjacent so that much of the magnetic field is cancelled. Normally, in
audio this isn't a big deal, but the output can run pretty high
current at a high di/dt (rate of current change), and this can cause
induced voltages in nearby wiring.
Well I'm not seeing that ringing, but I'm still planning major
reconfiguration and re-wiring once I get the Toroidal xfmrs. The
current wiring config is very much like the stock Hafler, except
missing one channel on each block. Very far from optimal. I was going
to use Carol 14# tinned stranded for this, one of their better grades.

One of the tests I run an amp through, is to inject a white noise
signal hipassed at a cutoff of 20KHz. The filter is about 6th order.
At zero to full power output, there should be no audible sound coming
from your speakers (it's all above your hearing limit). Amplifiers
that have problems will generate frying noises or other odd sounds.
These usually are a result of excessive feedback causing distortion
when the amp slews. The nice part of this test is you need no
equipment other than the signal source and your own ears.
This is very interesting Paul! I assume it is a line level filter.

There are a few tricks for placing compensation components in the
circuit to reduce overload effects during transient conditions. They
may reduce the bandwidth (of course, never below 20KHz), but will give
your amp much better performance under difficult signals.
I have A/B'd an amp that had this problem (A was the original, B was
one modified to eliminate the transient distortion). To be honest, I
couldn't tell the difference. It was blatantly obvious with a square
wave and 'scope.
Wow...interesting again. No audible difference. Mmmm...

So..... apart from your rather biased hearing tests (with a single
amp, it is pretty well impossible to have a blind A/B test), have you
made any measurements?
Oh yes, clearly biased, but fairly evident. I think most guys here
would have heard the oddity. But I changed speaker cables, and viola.

I have a theory about why this is the case, but I've gone on a bit
long here already.
Dave








Paul

[Eeyore]

Wink wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
jakdedert wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
jakdedert wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Wink wrote:

Why did you change the caps?
When the stock Hafler 10 kufd Sangamos started to die several years
ago, I replaced them with Musical Concepts 80V, 27 kufd LC-200s made
by Chemi-con, and noticed immediately a deadening of the sound.
Duh....

Why the duh ?

Duh = 'obvious'. If the caps were actually 'dying', then replacing them
would improve the sound...same point you made below.

'Improve' depends on subjectivity. Make different for sure. It seems the OP felt it was
inferior despite the fact, that's how the amps were designed.

However his later comments make me think he may have disturbed something else if the sound
really deteriorated badly.


No -- no large scale deterioration. Nothing was disturbed. The bass
started to lose control on certain inputs at high spls. The rest of
the spectrum seemed unaffected. It is curious, and it's been a while.
I didn't document the failure scenario.

Hi 'Wink'. I'm pleased to see I haven't incurred your wrath with my 'anti-subjectivist'
comments.

The scenario you describe i.e at high SPL, correlates exactly with the predictable change in
clipping behaviour that one would experience with different VALUE capacitors (i.e the new ones
are back to stock original design value as opposed to the old ones which had lost their value).
Old electrolytic caps lose their value as the electrolyte dries out btw. Their ESR also
increases which may conceivably also have a measurable / audible effect.


Graham

[Eeyore]

Wink wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Wink wrote:

A new stock DH-200 or 220 doesn't sound dead.

We only have your word for that. When did you last hear one in *ORIGINAL* condition
with PSU capacitors at their orignal value ?


Science has the potential to have all the answers. It doesn't follow
that is has all the answers currently.

In this instance science most certainly DOES have the answer.
Of course, it frequently does.

If it DOESN'T, there's a problem or a misapprehension somewhere !!! Realising this
fundamental truth and working things through has led me to learn some interesting things
about some aspects of circuit behaviour that 'common sense' or 'popular lore' would have
you believe were due to things that are in fact utterly irrelevant.


Your old caps had reduced capacitance through aging. That's why new ones of the
correct originally specified value sounded different. That would be the case
regardless of the brand name on the can.
Yes, they would sound different regardless of "the brand name on the
can". But would they sound moribund??

Are you just randonly typing? This is ridiculous.

What I'm saying is that any two (20% tolerance for example) caps selected at random of
any specific value may differ in value by as much as 50%. That's enough to ensure that
sonic differences may result in some circuits. Of course if the subjectivist hears this
difference when fitting their new 'magick component' they will tend to beleive it's
because of the magick because they've been told to believe that over a scientific
explanation.

As to sounding 'moribund', how can you say this when as you say it's at high SPL and
presumably clipping. This is not a sensible test regime for any piece of kit.

I have in the past looked at the technical construction aspect of BGs and can find
nothing there whatever that would improve the performance of a power supply.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Wink wrote:

Wink wrote:

I think YOU think you know what you're talking about, but really
don't. And I suspect you know this.

I'm a pro-audio designer who's worked with some of the best in the busines and I'm
something of an expert about amplifier design.
Pro-Audio designer. Mmmmm.... Do you have a 30 db notch at 4 or 6 khz
from noise induced hearing loss?

Absolutely not. Designers don't typically expose themselves to the high SPLs that might
do that. As it happens I have done some live sound engineering but I'm careful about my
exposure.


Do you fancy the Benchmark DAC 1?

I haven't heard one but my recent experience is that all ** decent ** modern DACS are
essentially indistinguishable. Obviously not those in a $29 DVD player of course.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Wink wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Wink wrote:

Seems like a whole lot of time, effort, and money being spent to run a
lower output stage voltage. To each his own.

63 V BGs were available for a deal, albeit a relative deal -- no
question.

80 V versions are gone. This is the only reason I'm lowering the rail
voltage.

They'll be totally fine at 63V. At least you can then rule out bias
variations caused by the lower voltage operation.
Current flow in the main rails has not changed at all with the cap
change and AC mains thus DC rails voltage reduction -- 355 ma at 63 -
53 volts. In fact, current (measured at the rails fuse point) starts
to plateau noticebly around 60-70 Vac mains input.

OK, that's fine but you've reduced your headroom by a few dB. That would seem
to be a likely culprit.


Are you thinking about more than current flow through the output
devices, perhaps the biasing on driver board elements? Interesting if
so, which did not occur to me.

Both the biasing of the output devices themselves AND the driver / voltage
gain stages.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Wink wrote:

I should say at this point that I seem to have solved the "peculiar"
sound problem: Speaker cables. Being monoblocks, I am able to use very
short, ~ 10" 14# zip cord as cable, biwired. I switched those out for
my "reference standard" 6 foot, 16# Lowes extension cord cables
(bi-wired) and the problem dissappeared. A dramatic result,
completely unanticipated. When a result is so unanticipated, I rate
it as significant despite the lack of rigorous test methods.

Looks like your speakers prefer being driven from a slightly higher
impedance than can be achieved with short wiring.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Wink" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:05:26 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Jerry Peters wrote:

Wink wrote:
A glorious response. Curious in light of previous
helpful and cordial ones, free of your compulsive
cruelty.

I'm not an objectivist Arny. I've tried to be, the
scientist within compels it; but amps sound different,
quite different frequently.

ICs and cables: I've been a maximum skeptic for
decades, using generics and zip cord. But recent
experiments have shown that these items do indeed
sound different, frequently meaningfully. It is
distressing, looking for the physics, and the yet the
conclusion is inescapable.

I'm convinced that, though objectivists do not
necessarily have inferior ears, they may have ears
which are insensitive to things the subjectivists
detect. Like my wife who can distinguish colors that
look utterly the same to me.

Actually there is a possible scientific explanation for
this: a small number of women can actually see far more
colors than the usual 16 million or so. I forget the
details, but their retinal structure is actually
different.

Precisely. If you actually look in enough detail, you'll
find the scientific exaplanation. The audio
subjectivists don't even try looking though. They see
and hear only what they want to believe. It's like a
religion.


This may be true of some subjectivists, but surely there
is a continuum.

Sure, and I'm a subjectivist on that continuum.

If you study up on the meaning of subjectivist, its not what the high end
audio crowd make it out to be. In fact subjectivism and objectivism are not
necessarily mutually exclusive, no matter what the high end high priests
want people to believe.

I had a lot of fun with the standard definitions of objectivism and
subjectivism at HE2005. Anybody who actually listened and believed the
standard definitions, started out knowing that I was debating a posturer,
and not someone who appeals to reason and knowlege.

Give me the science every time, if it's been formulated.

All results of scientific investigation are provisional, until we get the
next generation of improved results. Thing is, this golden capacitor
weirdness has been around for about 30 years, and its just as false today as
it was 30 years ago.

I use extension cord for cable. Perhaps that will glean some points.

It's not about points, its about gettting the best possible results given
available resources. The ultimate non-negotiable resource is calendar time,
with money running a close second. As this thread tells me, the exotic caps
are wasting both.

[Arny Krueger]

"Wink" wrote in message

His later comments make me think he wouldn't know if his
amp was bad or good. The only subjective measurement
unit he's presented (beside ps voltage) is US Dollars
($). More$ = Better sound. Many more$ = Much Better
Sound.

jak

No -- All I've described is that I acquired BG filter
caps. Did you even read my posts, or is this simply a
reflexive response?

I doubt it - but buying the BGs was obviously some kind of poorly
throught-out exercise.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Wink wrote:

Why does that not make sense to 'audiophiles'...and by
what objective measurement were the originals starting
to 'die'?
Loss of bass control. Serious enough to be quite
objective. I initially thought the surrounds on the
woofers were coming unglued.

That sounds like something more serious. Do you really
know what you're doing poking around inside amps ?

What ELSE did you touch (possibly inadvertantly).

Time to study up on the new golden driver cards, no?

Google on John Hillig...

[Arny Krueger]

"Wink" wrote in message

A new stock DH-200 or 220 doesn't sound dead.

Neither does a used one in good shape with commodity
power supply caps @ $10 each.
That's brilliant

Science has the potential to have all the answers. It
doesn't follow that is has all the answers currently.

But audio isn't rocket science and it isn't high energy
physics, either. Really? Explain.

We've got all the answers we need to understand why
things sound different. I hope that is the case. The
trough job is getting true believers to do proper
listening tests.

Let the true believers believe, and continue with your
pot metal ears.

Yup, the prerequisite radical naive subjectivist personal attack.

I've been posting to Usenet for over 12 years and some things don't change.

I think YOU think you know what you're talking about,
but really don't.

Prove it.

Can't, a perception.

Solipsim noted.

And I suspect you know this.

Doesn't follow,

Logically, you mean? Of course not. Another perception.

More solipsism.

Shame.

[Arny Krueger]

"Wink" wrote in message

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:23:08 -0500, jakdedert
wrote:

Wink wrote:
A new stock DH-200 or 220 doesn't sound dead.

Science has the potential to have all the answers. It
doesn't follow that is has all the answers currently.

I think YOU think you know what you're talking about,
but really don't. And I suspect you know this.

I suspect you pay a lot of money for nothing. Probably
you have a lot
of money to spend on nothing. Fine. You just won't get
much sympathy
for snake-oil hawkers in a forum of objective audio
(mostly) professionals. ]

Objective audio pros: Exactly why I posted the original
question here, and actually did get a few sound
responses. Thanks to Mark, Dave and Kevin.

Nahh, Dave said "just a guess".

Kevin was presuming a badly designed power amp.

And Mark said that "It ought to work fine", which is basically what the rest
of us are saying, only we're giving you more details about *why* it should
work fine.

You've taken the word (or falling for the BS...your
choice) of people
who are simply taking your money and laughing behind
your back.

You've no idea the decision making process that lead to
the BG purchase.

Whatever it was, science and generally accepted reasoning had nothing to do
with it.

Then you come here and try to convince us that the Emperor's
New Outfit is so exquisite

That would be the BlackGate hyper-capacitors. Money sinks for people who
are unclear about audio technology.

Wrong. I've not said a word about how the BGs sound.

There's really nothing to say - in a circuit like the Hafler, just about any
reasonble cap will sound identically the same.

Wait... yes I did: "Peculiar" in the original post, wrt
to the Variac arrangement. Doesn't quite equate to
"exquisite", does it?

Vague adjective time. Yawn.

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" wrote in message

Eeyore wrote:

wrote:

Seems like a whole lot of time, effort, and money being
spent to run a lower output stage voltage. To each his
own.

It's completely NUTS.

Quite bizarre, to spend all that money on caps that are
so incorrect that he thinks he needs variacs...

Indeed.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Wink wrote:

Seems like a whole lot of time, effort, and money being
spent to run a lower output stage voltage. To each his
own.

63 V BGs were available for a deal, albeit a relative
deal -- no question.

80 V versions are gone. This is the only reason I'm
lowering the rail voltage.

They'll be totally fine at 63V. At least you can then
rule out bias variations caused by the lower voltage
operation.

I don't think so - given the highly imprecise methodology he's using to
evaluate performance.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Wink wrote:

I should say at this point that I seem to have solved
the "peculiar" sound problem: Speaker cables. Being
monoblocks, I am able to use very short, ~ 10" 14# zip
cord as cable, biwired. I switched those out for my
"reference standard" 6 foot, 16# Lowes extension cord
cables (bi-wired) and the problem dissappeared. A
dramatic result, completely unanticipated. When a
result is so unanticipated, I rate it as significant
despite the lack of rigorous test methods.

Looks like your speakers prefer being driven from a
slightly higher impedance than can be achieved with short
wiring.

Nahh, the application of additional snake oil audio cables rectified his
concerns.

[Arny Krueger]

"Wink" wrote in message

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:00:37 GMT, dizzy
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

wrote:

Seems like a whole lot of time, effort, and money
being spent to run a lower output stage voltage. To
each his own.

It's completely NUTS.

Quite bizarre, to spend all that money on caps that are
so incorrect that he thinks he needs variacs...

From the original post: "...I'm using a Variac to reduce
the AC mains input for a rail Voltage of ~ 53 volts until
I replace the Hafler trafos with lower sec V Toroidals."


It looks like 90% of you do not actually read posts.

You're splitting hairs, Winky. Just because he didn't recite your complete
plan doesn't mean that he didn't read and comprehend it.

It's obvious Winky that you are desperate to find any fault with the people
who disagree with you.

Instills a lot of confidence in your technical conclusions.

I have yet to see even one technical conclusion from you, Winky.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , Wink wrote:
I happened to snag a set of 63V/10,000ufd FK BG caps for my monoblock
PSUs. The rail voltage with stock Hafler xmfr is ~ 63 Volts so to
avoid exploding my $$ BGs, I'm using a Variac to reduce the AC mains
input for a rail Voltage of ~ 53 volts until I replace the Hafler
trafos with lower sec V Toroidals. [Refer to "Hafler Monoblock
Project..." thread]

The mystery is the sound, which is sort of peculiar. Hard to explain,
but what is the source? Of course there are 3 variables that have been
changed: PSU caps from Chemicons to BGs, lower rail voltage (well
within the operating range of the PA-3D driver board), and inclusion
of the Variac twixt house mains and both amps.

Should I expect some odd interaction between the Variac and existing
Hafler power xfmr? Nothing obvious comes to mind. Running stone cold,
the 1500VA, Powerstat Variac has plenty of capacity.

Not much to go on here, but thought I would throw this one out to you
guys. Thanks again...
Dave

I like putting a buch of car batteries up for the rails. Its really
rock solid sound.

Here is all about BG..
http://www.acoustic-dimension.com/blackgate/bgmain.htm

greg

[Arny Krueger]

"GregS" wrote in message


Here is all about BG..
http://www.acoustic-dimension.com/blackgate/bgmain.htm

What a crock!

http://www.acoustic-dimension.com/blackgate/bgtech.htm

"Graphite fine particles have realized tunnel effect and turned ion transfer
of a slow move into Transcendence Electron Transfer of a super high speed
move by releasing electrons from ion's restriction"


"Among electronic parts, electrolytic capacitors are the worst cause of
noise"

"
In short, three major problems exist for electronic equipment using
electrolytic capacitors:

1. Signals have ion distortion noise, lowering the S/N ratio. This results
in a substantial lowering of the volume of the signal information.
2. The phase (frequency) of signals is delayed, seriously affecting color
phase and digital pulse signals.
3. The power transfer efficiency does not match the increased level of the
signals.
"

http://www.acoustic-dimension.com/bl...e/techEcap.htm

"Super E-Caps is the ideal Capacitor solving a number of problems such as an
electron transfer, distortion, non-polarity, durability, internal resonance
etc."

"Ordinarily, when the electrons flow through common conductors such as an
electrolyte, a manganese dioxide, an organic semiconductor and so on,
non-linear distortions generate corresponding to each conductor
(average -100db) as shown in Figure 1 which indicates distortion
characteristics."

"An electrolytic capacitor, consisting a rolled pair of aluminum electrodes
set face to face, forms a specific resonance frequency between the
inductance L element of the electrodes and its self capacitance. In this
type of capacitor, it is impossible to eliminate resonance. Normally the
resonance frequency is about 200KHz at 100 µF, about 70KHz at I000µF, and
about 35KHz at 2200µF. These values apply almost equally to capacitors of
the same capacitance per area, whether polarized or non-polarized."

http://www.acoustic-dimension.com/bl...chreport89.htm

"Unconventional BG-WK POWER TANK is born: suppresses noise completely! "

"A lot kind of electronic equipment which handles with pulse such as a
television has a cathode ray tube imaging display device inside.
Without exception, it has a horizontal fly back circuit for an electron-beam
deflection of fairly large voltage. In fact, this is the biggest source of
noise generation.
The noise invades other numerous circuits connected with a same power supply
directly, and self interference occurs inside because the noise is
unexpectedly larger than that of coming from outside."

Blahh, blahh, blahh. :-(

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"GregS" wrote

Here is all about BG..
http://www.acoustic-dimension.com/blackgate/bgmain.htm

What a crock!

http://www.acoustic-dimension.com/blackgate/bgtech.htm

"Graphite fine particles have realized tunnel effect and turned ion transfer
of a slow move into Transcendence Electron Transfer of a super high speed
move by releasing electrons from ion's restriction"

Pure gobbledegook.



"Among electronic parts, electrolytic capacitors are the worst cause of
noise"

TOTALLY untrue. The worst causes of noise are high value resistros and active
amplifying devices.


"In short, three major problems exist for electronic equipment using
electrolytic capacitors:

1. Signals have ion distortion noise, lowering the S/N ratio. This results
in a substantial lowering of the volume of the signal information.
2. The phase (frequency) of signals is delayed, seriously affecting color
phase and digital pulse signals.
3. The power transfer efficiency does not match the increased level of the
signals. "

Utter complete and total undiluted GARBAGE. Pure pseudo-science using made-up
words in fact with the emphasis on 'pseud' !

Enough said.

Graham

[Wink]

No -- no large scale deterioration. Nothing was disturbed. The bass
started to lose control on certain inputs at high spls. The rest of
the spectrum seemed unaffected. It is curious, and it's been a while.
I didn't document the failure scenario.

Hi 'Wink'. I'm pleased to see I haven't incurred your wrath with my 'anti-subjectivist'
comments.

The scenario you describe i.e at high SPL, correlates exactly with the predictable change in
clipping behaviour that one would experience with different VALUE capacitors (i.e the new ones
are back to stock original design value as opposed to the old ones which had lost their value).
Old electrolytic caps lose their value as the electrolyte dries out btw. Their ESR also
increases which may conceivably also have a measurable / audible effect.

Graham
I'm not really a subjectivist, more of an Objectivist with occasional
Subjectivist sympathies. In any case, all my wrath was incurred long
ago. None left.

I extracted all 4 old Sangamos from basement hell. Recall I have a 220
and 200. (I usually just say I have 2 - 220s to avoid tedium, like I'm
engaging in now.)

They were pulled in Feb '05. 2 marked "work, but questionable". The
other 2, "Bad".

WBQ 1 - 9700 ufd
WBQ 2 - 8000 ufd
BAD 1 - 7800 ufd
BAD 2 - 0.0082 ufd -- this one rattles

What to make of it? The story is actually more complicated than
originally reported. I was bi-amping at the time, using BW303s
($250/pr) and diy subs. The subs were spitting out the nasties so it
must have been that amp that keeled over and I simply decided to
replace all caps in both amps.

I don't know if the 3 still showing viable values should be reformed
before measurement. I doubt it, I think those values are probably
within tolerance, whatever that is.

You'd certainly expect something obnoxious from the rattler, severe
120 hz hum minimally. That wasn't the case. I was getting sporadic
spitting and popping as well, if I recall correctly.

It would be interesting to press the 2 - WBQs back into service for a
listen but am not crazy about the idea. I don't recall why I have
them marked "...But Questionable".

Sometime after cap replacement, I eventually lost 3 of the 4 total
channels, so other things may have been brewing.

I'll stop here lest I put you into a coma.
Dave
(Wink)

[Arny Krueger]

"Wink" wrote in message

Let the true believers believe, and continue with your
pot metal ears.

Yup, the prerequisite radical naive subjectivist
personal attack.

You mean requisite.
I've been posting to Usenet for over 12 years and some
things don't change. 12 years -- very impressive.

Can't, a perception.

Solipsim noted.

SolipsiSm. Incorrectly used, but at least your spelling
is close. I'm beginning to think you're a fraud Arny. You
seem nervous.

I'm not nervious - I'm too relaxed to worry about yet another disciple of
Walt Jung who thinks he has all the answers.

Correct my casual spelling and make a big problem out of it if you will...

Your nit-picking proves to me that I was right to not bother check the
spelling of the word because you'll grab onto any nit, no matter how small,
to avoid getting the truth about the pseudo-science that you have bought
into, hook, line, and golden capacitor.

[Arny Krueger]

"Wink" wrote in message
news
Wrong. I've not said a word about how the BGs sound.

There's really nothing to say - in a circuit like the
Hafler, just about any reasonble cap will sound
identically the same.

"....sound identically the same." Ouch.

You can't improve on sonically transparent, which the stock Haflers are.

Well anyway, All of this is simply a source of amusement
for you, obviously. I'm not using the original PC19
driver card.

I figured this out. I'm very sure that the Hafler stock PC19 card is
intelligently designed. I've heard many times with my own ears how nicely
they work.

You're increasing smallness has become exhausting.

I'm kinda interested in hearing how Hillig peed in the PC19 soup and
according to you, ruined their ability to work with slightly low power
supply voltages. I have the schematic of the origional PC19 here on the
screen...

[Wink]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:25:31 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Wink" wrote in message

His later comments make me think he wouldn't know if his
amp was bad or good. The only subjective measurement
unit he's presented (beside ps voltage) is US Dollars
($). More$ = Better sound. Many more$ = Much Better
Sound.

jak

No -- All I've described is that I acquired BG filter
caps. Did you even read my posts, or is this simply a
reflexive response?

I doubt it - but buying the BGs was obviously some kind of poorly
throught-out exercise.

Well--possibly. I spent an eternity searching for more conventionally
priced caps. I was quite ready to install some decent comp grade screw
tops. You supplied a Panasonic link, which are almost certainly
splendid.

I talked to quite a few industry folks, none of whom sell them. I do
not recall such incredible wide-spread enthusiasm over a single
passive component like we've seen with the BGs. Of course, history
records many such mass reactions to bad ideas. But it was actually
Martin Colloms articles that pushed me over the edge.

It is a rare caprice for me. My total system cost even with the BGs is
probably less than 2500 bucks. There is a lot of diy in there,
including my speakers.

My hope is that I can sell them without monumental loss should they
not perform at least superbly. The current demand verges on the
absurd.

Should I report back that indeed the poorly thought out exercise was
exactly that, I'm sure your vindication will be joyous Arny. I
certainly hope so.
Dave

[Dave Platt]

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:

Wrong. I've not said a word about how the BGs sound.

There's really nothing to say - in a circuit like the
Hafler, just about any reasonble cap will sound
identically the same.

"....sound identically the same." Ouch.

You can't improve on sonically transparent, which the stock Haflers are.

This exchange reminds me of a very perceptive editorial in IAR some
years ago. The writer opined that many of the audiophile-oriented
equipment reviewers were praising certain audio components, for
behaviors that they should have been condemning.

The specific example was DAC boxes. Certain (expensive) DAC boxes
were being praised for being very "revealing" - they would "reveal"
differences between the qualities of the CD transports with which they
were being used. That's actually a *bad* thing, as it indicates that
the DAC-box is reacting to aspects of the S/PDIF digital signal (e.g.
timing-jitter spectrum) that it *should* be ignoring. A DAC-box with
more robust clock-signal recovery circuitry would always sound the
same (i.e. at its best) when used with *any* CD transport that was
delivering a bit-correct digital data stream, and would not need an
outboard "jitter reduction" reclocker.

It seems to me that an amplifier circuit which is sensitive to the
brand (or e.g. slight ESR or value variations) of its power-supply
reservoir capacitors is, likewise, overly sensitive to things that it
really shouldn't "notice".

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

[Wink]

Time to study up on the new golden driver cards, no?

Google on John Hillig...

Golden driver cards? Explain.

The only notable thing a Google search reveals about John aside from
generally positive audio commentary is that his mother died last week,
but I knew this before seeing the obit.

I worship at the alter of John Hillig. This is what you assume of
course. Well -- It is true, I do.

[Wink]

Let the true believers believe, and continue with your
pot metal ears.

Yup, the prerequisite radical naive subjectivist personal attack.

You mean requisite.
I've been posting to Usenet for over 12 years and some things don't change.
12 years -- very impressive.

Can't, a perception.

Solipsim noted.

SolipsiSm. Incorrectly used, but at least your spelling is close. I'm
beginning to think you're a fraud Arny. You seem nervous.

And I suspect you know this.

Doesn't follow,

Logically, you mean? Of course not. Another perception.

More solipsism.

Shame.