Nothing I could ever find would please you, SY. I try to find pertinent material to explain what we often hear. This is one of the better articles.
However, once this is shown, then people have to extrapolate the BASIC CONCEPT of physical relocation of 99.999 % pure copper just sitting at room temperature. Think what it might do with current flowing through it, or if it was cryoed?
At least, I bought the book that had this article. That is more than most would do.
However, once this is shown, then people have to extrapolate the BASIC CONCEPT of physical relocation of 99.999 % pure copper just sitting at room temperature. Think what it might do with current flowing through it, or if it was cryoed?
At least, I bought the book that had this article. That is more than most would do.
I know this must be getting boring but I keep asking the same question:
even given an effect which is much bigger than anyone could conceivably imagine (e.g. some capacitor parameter doubled/halved), what would this do to an audio circuit? My answer is virtually nothing. So a big change in a coupling cap would produce a small change in a circuit. A tiny change in a cap would produce an almost infinitesimal change in a circuit, yet we are told that this is clearly audible (but only when sighted?).
Known measurable effects from temperature make little or no change to circuits, so that we only worry about a few of them (e.g. thermal cycling in feedback resistors). Why worry about even smaller non-effects?
Apart from jc blowing quantum smoke in our eyes, I note that most of the 'break-in fans' are grasping at misunderstood straws they heard from 'a man in a pub' rather than anything based on genuine understanding of physics and chemistry.
even given an effect which is much bigger than anyone could conceivably imagine (e.g. some capacitor parameter doubled/halved), what would this do to an audio circuit? My answer is virtually nothing. So a big change in a coupling cap would produce a small change in a circuit. A tiny change in a cap would produce an almost infinitesimal change in a circuit, yet we are told that this is clearly audible (but only when sighted?).
Known measurable effects from temperature make little or no change to circuits, so that we only worry about a few of them (e.g. thermal cycling in feedback resistors). Why worry about even smaller non-effects?
Apart from jc blowing quantum smoke in our eyes, I note that most of the 'break-in fans' are grasping at misunderstood straws they heard from 'a man in a pub' rather than anything based on genuine understanding of physics and chemistry.
Sound quality Vs measurement?
I still think if its not imagination then its adding or removing from the signal. Ie creating its own noise. OK yes another red herring.
And again it should be measurable..so where is the measurement?...It dosen't seem to exist..so why do dielectrics sound different..is this measurable..it should be..so a change in the dielectric sounds different with the same cap value?
Harmonics..oups another red herring..mechanical vibration? no we can't measure it..static effect..no we can't measure it..
Internal vibration with applied voltage..no we can't measure it..Piezo effect..no we can't measure it..
So as AndrewT said..its only seen in circuit..if it exists..so something effecting the cap? I give up...not a change in cap something else? The solder joint?..LMAO..
Regards
M. Gregg
I still think if its not imagination then its adding or removing from the signal. Ie creating its own noise. OK yes another red herring.
And again it should be measurable..so where is the measurement?...It dosen't seem to exist..so why do dielectrics sound different..is this measurable..it should be..so a change in the dielectric sounds different with the same cap value?
Harmonics..oups another red herring..mechanical vibration? no we can't measure it..static effect..no we can't measure it..
Internal vibration with applied voltage..no we can't measure it..Piezo effect..no we can't measure it..
So as AndrewT said..its only seen in circuit..if it exists..so something effecting the cap? I give up...not a change in cap something else? The solder joint?..LMAO..
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Imagine how much a pre-broken-in audiophile quality cap would cost!
That gives me an idea for a high margin business plan. I like to give away cryo-treated tubes at parties. It takes about 2 hours and a few icecube trays. If you find a tube floating in your drink after the ice melts, it's yours to keep, as a party gift!
20
Guess I would be out of luck theres no ice in my Burbon just keep it in the refrigerator . Audiophilers want only virgin cap no used for them. Next thing you tell me the power cable matter.Imagine how much a pre-broken-in audiophile quality cap would cost!
I like to give away cryo-treated tubes at parties. It takes about 2 hours and a few icecube trays. If you find a tube floating in your drink after the ice melts, it's yours to keep, as a party gift!
20
You saw right through me.
No go, now.Just as well, I suppose even if they were new caps, pre-broken-in, they would all come back due to the Satisfaction Guarantee, after being installed and then having no angels fly out of the speakers. Maybe it's an idea already tried and failed.
Thanks for stopping me from losing $55 of my initial startup cost!
20
How about a 6 frequency intermodular test spaced at 1, 1.6, 2.3 ,5, 7, 9 . on say a HP 3562 or other low noise floor device. There your test . I know some one will come forth and say the spacing as non-scientific with no basis in what they read on the net . But I have not yet seen other wise.
Useful answers? First we have to agree what the question is: "Why do some people believe that various (different, unrelated) treatments applied to a capacitor may change sound in a circuit which uses it as a coupling cap even when (a) no known electrical parameter has changed and (b) it would not matter that much if it had and (c) it only seems to happen if the listener knows it might have happened."
If you are using plumbing solder that might explain why you can hear your joints!
Stig of the dump Ongaku..with free teflon non stick caps and Hot glue damping..
..Sorry back to topic..
Regards
M. Gregg
At school It was teached me that one of the scientific method basics was peer review.
In theory, every publication should pass peers review and to assess or dismiss a publication usually the same experiment is conducted by others to confirm (or not) results.
I've posted some publications from Universities around the world, the AES accepted paper 7314 (Audio capacitors. Myth or reality?), Mr. Curl published excerpts from a book but all these sources seem to be irrelevant, experiments bad designed and so on...
Now I understand that people like SY or DF96 or Tomchr have tens of year of experience in their (electronic and physics related) fields but I can't really understand how they can dismiss so easily work of their University peers.
Maybe I'm missing something?
Really, I sincerely want to understand.
In theory, every publication should pass peers review and to assess or dismiss a publication usually the same experiment is conducted by others to confirm (or not) results.
I've posted some publications from Universities around the world, the AES accepted paper 7314 (Audio capacitors. Myth or reality?), Mr. Curl published excerpts from a book but all these sources seem to be irrelevant, experiments bad designed and so on...
Now I understand that people like SY or DF96 or Tomchr have tens of year of experience in their (electronic and physics related) fields but I can't really understand how they can dismiss so easily work of their University peers.
Maybe I'm missing something?
Really, I sincerely want to understand.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.