Justin Ulysses Morse wrote in message ...

I'm not calling this untrue, but I think it's an odd way to think about
it.

I'd say that the nominal ESR of a 1uF electrolytic specs at about 500
ohms or so, and a 1uF poly specs at about .1 ohms. And they sound
quite different. I'm thinking the ESR specs are correlating closely
to the results, since I found that an electrolytic with an ESR close
to .1 (big uF) sounds remarkably similar to a poly 1uF with an ESR of
..1...

It's definitely a different angle at looking at it, and that's why I
mentioned it. It delivered the goods for me on the several occaisions
I've done this, thought it was worth sharing...

So, was it the decreased parasitic capacitance that
improved your mike or was it the improved qualities of said
capacitance? In what way did the sound improve? Simply increased
high-end or some kind of improved clarity or lower distortion? Hmm?

ulysses

I'm not sure. The properties of Teflon make it the best choice to
"give the signal it's best chance" to remain unaltered in this
impedance environment. My main point is that it has a valid,
understandable basis (the dielectric properties of teflon, if not the
mechanism for improvement over the previous, unknown wire), and more
importantly, it delivered in the listening test. To quantify how the
sound differed before and after is pointless on a board, you have to
hear it for yourself, that's why I didn't do the wine tasting thing
trying to describe it...

Don't get me wrong, my intent is simply to say "these ideas have a
quantifiable basis and they actually delivered the sonics for me. You
might want to try them yourself sometime, if you haven't already".