The point I was trying to make is this.
If you choose a selection of parts by the specification that you think might do the job, the chances are you'll find a part that does. If you then listen to these you'll find a winner. Choosing them any other way is just a crap shoot. You could listen to thousands of caps before you find one that suits the particular operating conditions in the specific location you are selecting for. I liken it to high end headphones. There's loads of brands cashing in on people willing to drop huge money on fancy branding and a good marketing story. But there's only one STAX.
If you choose a selection of parts by the specification that you think might do the job, the chances are you'll find a part that does. If you then listen to these you'll find a winner. Choosing them any other way is just a crap shoot. You could listen to thousands of caps before you find one that suits the particular operating conditions in the specific location you are selecting for. I liken it to high end headphones. There's loads of brands cashing in on people willing to drop huge money on fancy branding and a good marketing story. But there's only one STAX.
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineers that say you are an ignorant because you heard a difference with a passive part, are the same that say that same spec amplifiers will sound the same. They are simply deaf, with absolutely no hearing education. Yes, you must educate your ear so that it will pay attention to details that most people do not care for.
That doesn't mean that specs are not important, but they do not say the whole truth. You have to use both things: objective and subjective information.
People that say that you imagined something, usually have no imagination at all.
That doesn't mean that specs are not important, but they do not say the whole truth. You have to use both things: objective and subjective information.
People that say that you imagined something, usually have no imagination at all.
Well, if you look into the residuals, there is a difference that can be measured if someone can really hear it. In the lab, we can measure subtle changes that can be heard. The days of not being able to measure these things has past a while ago. Time to accept the abilities of a few techs who can see this deeply in.
I do believe in listening tests also, but not to the degree most of you do.
-Chris
I do believe in listening tests also, but not to the degree most of you do.
-Chris
To be fair, listening tests is the only tool most DIYers have and can quote when discussing stuff.
Agreed. And this is what encourages them to call people with the technical background "deaf". Arrogance fed by ignorance.
I have never seen technical people called deaf in such a way. Most of the time they dismiss the matter and refuse to even conduct such listening tests themselves.
There is never even the chance to test or question their hearing.
It is more usual to see those technical people calling DIYers delusional. Which is arrogant itself because not only they make an unjustified assumption about what the other person is able to hear or actually does hear, they even have the arrogance to consider parts manufactured with different technics and/or materials electronically identical and dismiss any differences as irrelevant to sound reproduction.
Anyway. That's a very volatile discussion. As said above, we better keep an open mind. Absolute statements require absolute evidence
Last edited by a moderator:
Going back to the original question - "Best electrolytic capacitors"
I've tried loads of coupling caps in the DAC I use with my headphone amp and also In my Onix OA21 Integrated amp. Silmics sound overly soft and smooth, Nearly all the polypropylene caps I tried sounded too bright, Mundorf supreme silver,gold,oil had a dark midrange with unnatural highs, Nichicon KZ sound similar to polyropylene with a bright upper midrange. Polycarbonate and polyester both sound too bright as well.
The best by far was the Nichicon FW - everything sounds perfectly balanced.
On the other hand, On the Input of my Quad 306, all film caps work fine (the standard cap Is polyester). I haven't done a huge amount of experimenting In the Quad but Mundorf Supreme sounds great so far. Surprisingly, Audyn true copper max, high frequncies sounded a bit subdued (I was expecting them to be better than Mundorf from what I'd read). Knowing how Nichicon KZ sound, I wouldn't be at all surprised If they sound just fine In the Quad.
What I've learnt Is, every piece of equipment Is different, so experimentation Is key. Also, don't be afraid of electolytic capacitors - I thoroughly enjoy my headphone DAC with Nichicon FW lytics and would be very surprised to find a film cap that sounds this good.
I've tried loads of coupling caps in the DAC I use with my headphone amp and also In my Onix OA21 Integrated amp. Silmics sound overly soft and smooth, Nearly all the polypropylene caps I tried sounded too bright, Mundorf supreme silver,gold,oil had a dark midrange with unnatural highs, Nichicon KZ sound similar to polyropylene with a bright upper midrange. Polycarbonate and polyester both sound too bright as well.
The best by far was the Nichicon FW - everything sounds perfectly balanced.
On the other hand, On the Input of my Quad 306, all film caps work fine (the standard cap Is polyester). I haven't done a huge amount of experimenting In the Quad but Mundorf Supreme sounds great so far. Surprisingly, Audyn true copper max, high frequncies sounded a bit subdued (I was expecting them to be better than Mundorf from what I'd read). Knowing how Nichicon KZ sound, I wouldn't be at all surprised If they sound just fine In the Quad.
What I've learnt Is, every piece of equipment Is different, so experimentation Is key. Also, don't be afraid of electolytic capacitors - I thoroughly enjoy my headphone DAC with Nichicon FW lytics and would be very surprised to find a film cap that sounds this good.
Last edited:
I like the nichicon sw, found the sw the FW is smaller values and liked how they sound.
I start believing, it not all about specs as a good spec'd cap or even decent film caps just didnt seem better than some lytics when i tested them, which were silver oils 10ud in coupling output stage and left the stock lytics. The films just lacked energy amd sound flat and dead.
Really good films like the jupiter cu and vcap teflins sound fabulous but too expensive and large for my needs in a higher uf value.
I start believing, it not all about specs as a good spec'd cap or even decent film caps just didnt seem better than some lytics when i tested them, which were silver oils 10ud in coupling output stage and left the stock lytics. The films just lacked energy amd sound flat and dead.
Really good films like the jupiter cu and vcap teflins sound fabulous but too expensive and large for my needs in a higher uf value.
Love this post. I agree so much. Electrolytic caps mostly sound better then filmcaps whatever the purpose.
Hi dimkasta,
I find that trained listeners and skilled technicians mostly do agree on what sounds better. Sadly, those parts are generally not the ones sold at premium prices and are "audiophile approved". The entire question of price has exactly zero bearing on performance. Sometimes a high price indicates a poorly performing part (as is the usual case). However, increasing price within the range of industrial parts will often indicate a better performing part.
Like folks who argue with their doctor, often enthusiasts argue to the death with skilled technical people over these questions. Like a doctor, skilled technical people are arguing from a point of correct information. Same as those who argue with their doctor over homeopathic remedies for things like cancer. It's just as silly and just as sad.
I refuse to characterise my own work and depend on non-technical people to assess things. Keeps me honest and on the right track.
-Chris
True enough, and most folks would like to have some stake in a discussion. Some technical people do not have the skill or instruments capable to see the minor changes caused by components that "sound better". In those cases they are not able to measure what people can hear, but it is also very true that listening alone opens one up for "expectation bias" which can cause a person to clearly hear things opposite to the way it really is. Only highly trained listeners (as opposed to a "golden ear") and skilled technical people who do have the skill and equipment can reliably indicate which parts are in fact better for an application and those that are not.
I find that trained listeners and skilled technicians mostly do agree on what sounds better. Sadly, those parts are generally not the ones sold at premium prices and are "audiophile approved". The entire question of price has exactly zero bearing on performance. Sometimes a high price indicates a poorly performing part (as is the usual case). However, increasing price within the range of industrial parts will often indicate a better performing part.
Like folks who argue with their doctor, often enthusiasts argue to the death with skilled technical people over these questions. Like a doctor, skilled technical people are arguing from a point of correct information. Same as those who argue with their doctor over homeopathic remedies for things like cancer. It's just as silly and just as sad.
I refuse to characterise my own work and depend on non-technical people to assess things. Keeps me honest and on the right track.
-Chris
Chris, I get where you are coming from. All I am asking is people to keep an open mind.
If an engineer wants to be honest, especially in a highly undocumented and subjective area, the least he can do is give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Quoting anecdotal stuff or stuff that might not be applicable is easy from either side, but do not help at all.
Expectation bias may be applicable, but it might not. The price might be a factor, but it might not.
And when you are absolute about something, the weight of proof is on you.
When you call a diyer a delusional fool, it is on you to prove that he actually is. But I would be surprised if you had enough data to prove something like that from what is written in a forum.
DIYers usually are more flexible in what they say. "Hey, I tried this and heard that. You might want to check it". Audiophiles are a different discussion
I also disagree with your doctor analogy. It is a bit unfair. Cancer research and modern medicine are far more advanced and documented than the research on the subjective auditory significance of main or parasitic characteristics of electronic components.
Not to mention that the stakes are infinitely higher.
I also disagree that you have to be a trained listener to listen to differences. OK, you have to have a good system, a healthy pair of ears and some capacity to analyze and/or categorize what you are hearing, but at least up to some point, differences just hit you to the face. Just use a PIO coupling cap and then replace it with a Teflon one (the difference makes technical sense too in that case, but you get my point)
I agree that price is a factor that can significantly affect expectations. And yes "audiophile approved" stuff are often a way to drain money.
But I would surely love to be able to buy a 10uF teflon cap for a few bucks damn vcaps...
If an engineer wants to be honest, especially in a highly undocumented and subjective area, the least he can do is give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Quoting anecdotal stuff or stuff that might not be applicable is easy from either side, but do not help at all.
Expectation bias may be applicable, but it might not. The price might be a factor, but it might not.
And when you are absolute about something, the weight of proof is on you.
When you call a diyer a delusional fool, it is on you to prove that he actually is. But I would be surprised if you had enough data to prove something like that from what is written in a forum.
DIYers usually are more flexible in what they say. "Hey, I tried this and heard that. You might want to check it". Audiophiles are a different discussion
I also disagree with your doctor analogy. It is a bit unfair. Cancer research and modern medicine are far more advanced and documented than the research on the subjective auditory significance of main or parasitic characteristics of electronic components.
Not to mention that the stakes are infinitely higher.
I also disagree that you have to be a trained listener to listen to differences. OK, you have to have a good system, a healthy pair of ears and some capacity to analyze and/or categorize what you are hearing, but at least up to some point, differences just hit you to the face. Just use a PIO coupling cap and then replace it with a Teflon one (the difference makes technical sense too in that case, but you get my point)
I agree that price is a factor that can significantly affect expectations. And yes "audiophile approved" stuff are often a way to drain money.
But I would surely love to be able to buy a 10uF teflon cap for a few bucks
damn vcaps...
Hi dimkasta,
Well, a bunch of people who listen to each other's systems while offering criticism doesn't cut it either. Too often the group will play follow the leader for one. What they hear and read about equipment prepares the experience for expectation bias.
Humans are lousy test instruments, and very inconsistent ones on top of that. Without some kind of set reference, comparisons are next to useless.
Everyone likes to feel they can offer something to an interesting discussion. Being barred from saying much is very disheartening and annoying to some. The myth of being able to hear something that can't be measured offers credibility to a very weak hand. When I was younger, I couldn't play until I had put in my dues, bought the equipment and discovered how what I heard was shown on the instruments. So I travelled that road before. However, I did something about it and spent many tens of thousands on equipment, never mind the parts. I paid my dues and the price of admission. That road is open to any and all with the inclination and abilities. t's an expensive road, but not as expensive as some audio components that were sold. Fleecing the public is what the audiophile industry is all about. All smoke and mirrors with the odd good components to lend credibility to that industry.
Like it or not, science can see everything you can hear. Now for my favourite example. If these audiophile parts were as good as people say, NASA and the military would both use them as those are cost-is-no-object industries. How about test and measurement companies? They don't use those parts either. In fact, their circuits are often as basic as a good amplifier schematic. Good means reliable in this case. If you can measure what we hear, the test equipment is therefore better than the equipment we are measuring. Hmmm. What now?
Industry uses equipment with a lower signal to noise ratio and wider frequency range than audio equipment generally will produce.
I'm fine with someone who says "I like the sound of that over this". But trying to extend that observation any further is simply wrong without better information. That is where most folks go wrong.
-Chris
Well, a bunch of people who listen to each other's systems while offering criticism doesn't cut it either. Too often the group will play follow the leader for one. What they hear and read about equipment prepares the experience for expectation bias.
Humans are lousy test instruments, and very inconsistent ones on top of that. Without some kind of set reference, comparisons are next to useless.
Everyone likes to feel they can offer something to an interesting discussion. Being barred from saying much is very disheartening and annoying to some. The myth of being able to hear something that can't be measured offers credibility to a very weak hand. When I was younger, I couldn't play until I had put in my dues, bought the equipment and discovered how what I heard was shown on the instruments. So I travelled that road before. However, I did something about it and spent many tens of thousands on equipment, never mind the parts. I paid my dues and the price of admission. That road is open to any and all with the inclination and abilities. t's an expensive road, but not as expensive as some audio components that were sold. Fleecing the public is what the audiophile industry is all about. All smoke and mirrors with the odd good components to lend credibility to that industry.
Like it or not, science can see everything you can hear. Now for my favourite example. If these audiophile parts were as good as people say, NASA and the military would both use them as those are cost-is-no-object industries. How about test and measurement companies? They don't use those parts either. In fact, their circuits are often as basic as a good amplifier schematic. Good means reliable in this case. If you can measure what we hear, the test equipment is therefore better than the equipment we are measuring. Hmmm. What now?
Industry uses equipment with a lower signal to noise ratio and wider frequency range than audio equipment generally will produce.
I'm fine with someone who says "I like the sound of that over this". But trying to extend that observation any further is simply wrong without better information. That is where most folks go wrong.
-Chris
Last edited:
Hi Chris
I totally agree with your views on caps. Price does not warranty good sound.
What's get me thinking always is why 2 caps of same specs from different
brands can sound different. Here we're looking at generic ones without
any exotic mumbo jumbo involved. I understand where your coming from
& Im one of the gulity ones whose got no instruments to measure but relying
souly on my ears. Having said that I believe my ears are well trained enough
to be a good judge of how I tweak. As always there's the question of what are
we trying to attain, realism or what's in the recording.
Cheers
I totally agree with your views on caps. Price does not warranty good sound.
What's get me thinking always is why 2 caps of same specs from different
brands can sound different. Here we're looking at generic ones without
any exotic mumbo jumbo involved. I understand where your coming from
& Im one of the gulity ones whose got no instruments to measure but relying
souly on my ears. Having said that I believe my ears are well trained enough
to be a good judge of how I tweak. As always there's the question of what are
we trying to attain, realism or what's in the recording.
Cheers
Good morning everyone. Feeling chatty this morning
Cut it towards what? They are just offering suggestions according to their experience.
True, but you simply cannot know if this is the case for the person you are talking about.
True. That is why I said you have to have some kind of analyzing capacity. If you are judging things using different music or different equipment and do not keep a baseline, then you are obviously fooling yourself or you have ulterior motives (selling stuff or trying to gain credibility in your circle).
But again, we cannot know if this is true or not from a bunch of forum posts.
Pretty much the road I am trying to walk on. But again, you cannot judge someone's experience or claims because he does not have the money or time to work on the technical stuff.
Here I disagree completely. If we were currently able to "see" or model everything about the correlation between electronic parts and audio, we would not be having this chat.
I am not saying that it can't be done. I am saying that we have not done it yet. Unfortunately, the matter is very complex and would offer small practical and monetary benefit, so things remain mostly anecdotal. The way audiophiles and shady companies like it.
And the thought of NASA using audiophile commercial stuff is just silly. Even if it made technical sense, they would just custom order a part (like they do) and get a bazzilion of them for a fraction of the cost.
I agree but I do not see how a diyer might even try to extend that observation any further with authority. I admit I have done it trying to explain what I heard. I admit that some things I wrote were mildly moronic. It does not change what I heard.
And that is what a forum is for. Learning from each other.
Cut it towards what? They are just offering suggestions according to their experience.
True, but you simply cannot know if this is the case for the person you are talking about.
True. That is why I said you have to have some kind of analyzing capacity. If you are judging things using different music or different equipment and do not keep a baseline, then you are obviously fooling yourself or you have ulterior motives (selling stuff or trying to gain credibility in your circle).
But again, we cannot know if this is true or not from a bunch of forum posts.
Pretty much the road I am trying to walk on. But again, you cannot judge someone's experience or claims because he does not have the money or time to work on the technical stuff.
Here I disagree completely. If we were currently able to "see" or model everything about the correlation between electronic parts and audio, we would not be having this chat.
I am not saying that it can't be done. I am saying that we have not done it yet. Unfortunately, the matter is very complex and would offer small practical and monetary benefit, so things remain mostly anecdotal. The way audiophiles and shady companies like it.
And the thought of NASA using audiophile commercial stuff is just silly. Even if it made technical sense, they would just custom order a part (like they do) and get a bazzilion of them for a fraction of the cost.
I agree but I do not see how a diyer might even try to extend that observation any further with authority. I admit I have done it trying to explain what I heard. I admit that some things I wrote were mildly moronic. It does not change what I heard.
And that is what a forum is for. Learning from each other.
Well Dimkasta, sadly there's many who would disagree with our findings etc. Like me I've been tweaking my AYA Ds for 2 years now & every cap that I tried
around the TDA brings different results be it good or bad. Theory would statethat low noise, low esr is the way to go but unfortunately it's not this way in
reality. Just the 3 main supply cap for the TDA is enough to make you headscratch as to why it sounds different with different caps and I dare say that to
really hear what the Tda can really do, this is where one have to start your tweaks from. Once you get there next step is value of the caps & again this
will bring about different presentation. Apologies for side tracking but it's still about caps right. lol
Cheers
around the TDA brings different results be it good or bad. Theory would statethat low noise, low esr is the way to go but unfortunately it's not this way in
reality. Just the 3 main supply cap for the TDA is enough to make you headscratch as to why it sounds different with different caps and I dare say that to
really hear what the Tda can really do, this is where one have to start your tweaks from. Once you get there next step is value of the caps & again this
will bring about different presentation. Apologies for side tracking but it's still about caps right. lol
Cheers
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not much use to answer or comment specifically each statement of this discussion. I have been reading similar ones over the years, and rarely do they seem to get anywhere. People do not "want" to be convinced of something their thinking mechanism prevents them from thinking differently. The matter is almost political, on a time where gray tones are disappearing and people are splitting in black and white groups. The concepts of training versus capacity are the ones that should matter the most, and only then enter into the question of passive parts modifying audio quality. By "quality" I do not mean better or worst, just differences that can be repeated.
The best reference in audio is non-electronic audio music, as that is something which still holds the best chance to have real natural sounds, only affected by the place of reproduction (acoustics). This is something anyone can do by going to acoustic events in opera houses and other smaller similar presentations. Chords and wind instruments, more than percussion. are the richest in harmonics, which allow to teach your ear to small peculiarities. Anyone with no other specific training can do it, but it's a fact that you must be able to pinpoint those peculiarities and be able to differentiate them. Training is concentration on a single objective, from sports to space engineering. The objective in audio is identify the sounds you listen and how or on what they are different.
For the discussion in question here, the element in question are differences versus imagination. The latter is mentioned by subjectivists as being the most in their claim that audiophiles "imagine" they hear something that is not there. Particularly when the listener "wants"' to hear a difference. When I mention some kind of training, it's that the listener had to go through a self-learning process, if possible comparing actual sounds with their electronic reproduction. Or you can have someone show you what should pay attention to and describe as accurately as possible what you listen. But you must do this several times, and this should prevent "imagination" from entering into the equation. This may sound difficult, but it's not and it's also fun.
All this I talk from my own experience, as I started my work as a film audio engineer about 45 years ago, and my only background were some primitive recordings I had done on tape. Yes, 1/4 magnetic tape! Graduating into the majors implied using recorders such as Nagra, Uher, Revox, Studer and Ampex; and microphones such as Sennheiser, AKG and Neumann. The quest was how much to make the actual sound your bare ears listened to into the tape and then again transcript to the editing magnetic tape with an as similar as possible audio quality as your ears had listened to. That was my training.
Later on, when I took an interest in electronics as something related to the audio recording/reproducing process, investigating what could affect the quality chain. It's quite likely that many engineers could call this completely subjective process as pure BS, but I never found one that told me so. When CD players came into the picture things got interesting on this objective/subjective question, because upgrading the passive parts did bring subtle changes to the sound.
On the capacitor field, coming back to what this thread is about, Marsh and Jung published a very interesting research they made, correlating several capacitor types and how their dielectric affected distortion. Tantalums and ceramic were the major offenders, and polystyrene and polypropylene the major winners. Electrolytics were in the middle.
Some engineers like Walt Jung or John Curl do believe in subjective audio qualities in passive parts, and Jung particularly seems to have been trying to correlate these qualities to innovative audio measurements. And that is also a major point.
Why can't engineers and audiophiles meet in the middle and both acknowledge there might something valid on what the other is claiming?
The best reference in audio is non-electronic audio music, as that is something which still holds the best chance to have real natural sounds, only affected by the place of reproduction (acoustics). This is something anyone can do by going to acoustic events in opera houses and other smaller similar presentations. Chords and wind instruments, more than percussion. are the richest in harmonics, which allow to teach your ear to small peculiarities. Anyone with no other specific training can do it, but it's a fact that you must be able to pinpoint those peculiarities and be able to differentiate them. Training is concentration on a single objective, from sports to space engineering. The objective in audio is identify the sounds you listen and how or on what they are different.
For the discussion in question here, the element in question are differences versus imagination. The latter is mentioned by subjectivists as being the most in their claim that audiophiles "imagine" they hear something that is not there. Particularly when the listener "wants"' to hear a difference. When I mention some kind of training, it's that the listener had to go through a self-learning process, if possible comparing actual sounds with their electronic reproduction. Or you can have someone show you what should pay attention to and describe as accurately as possible what you listen. But you must do this several times, and this should prevent "imagination" from entering into the equation. This may sound difficult, but it's not and it's also fun.
All this I talk from my own experience, as I started my work as a film audio engineer about 45 years ago, and my only background were some primitive recordings I had done on tape. Yes, 1/4 magnetic tape! Graduating into the majors implied using recorders such as Nagra, Uher, Revox, Studer and Ampex; and microphones such as Sennheiser, AKG and Neumann. The quest was how much to make the actual sound your bare ears listened to into the tape and then again transcript to the editing magnetic tape with an as similar as possible audio quality as your ears had listened to. That was my training.
Later on, when I took an interest in electronics as something related to the audio recording/reproducing process, investigating what could affect the quality chain. It's quite likely that many engineers could call this completely subjective process as pure BS, but I never found one that told me so. When CD players came into the picture things got interesting on this objective/subjective question, because upgrading the passive parts did bring subtle changes to the sound.
On the capacitor field, coming back to what this thread is about, Marsh and Jung published a very interesting research they made, correlating several capacitor types and how their dielectric affected distortion. Tantalums and ceramic were the major offenders, and polystyrene and polypropylene the major winners. Electrolytics were in the middle.
Some engineers like Walt Jung or John Curl do believe in subjective audio qualities in passive parts, and Jung particularly seems to have been trying to correlate these qualities to innovative audio measurements. And that is also a major point.
Why can't engineers and audiophiles meet in the middle and both acknowledge there might something valid on what the other is claiming?
Last edited by a moderator:
Totally agree Calmart one has to be a good listener in order to tweak. Here offcourse we're caught up in a catch 22 situation. Realism as to what we hear in real or realsim as to what the mike is recording ? There's also the multitude of CD's that we have that not only have different quality of recording with different equipment at different venues etc So at the end of the day it becomes tuning/tweaking to achievea balance. From my exposure to live music, there's much detailsthats not totally clear within the mix but in audio world we've a group whose talking about placement, imaging etc. I guess it's a pick your poison scenerio ya
Cheers
Cheers
Last edited by a moderator: