. Who's opinion would you trust?
Some one who actually did a REAL test like using SBT otherwise it's all whatever.
Yes, lets get back to hijacking this thread...
But I'm sticking to the science. I've had a good look at the first three 2.2uF Mundorfs. $20 Mundorf Supreme, $60 Mundorf Supreme silver/oil, $5 Mundorf MCap are all pretty faultless. All claim DF of 0.00002. Way better than my cheapie MKPs which are a polyester-like 0.001. The better ones are much fatter and rated at 1000V. Some are a mere skinny 250V, and we may fancy them less here.
Having studied the PDF of laser measurements of that odd harmonic acoustic oscillation in the Clarity Caps between 10-30kHz, I reckon that big fat caps are where it's gonna be at for minimising this. It's a bit like a LCR resonance where either end shakes and the middle stays still. So short and fat and massive will resist this best.
Since you can wire an inductive tweeter (0.01-0.09 mH typically) up to a capacitor in a very simple HP filter, you would expect an interaction here. It forms a series LCR which will ring. FWIW, those old Solen MKP capacitors I tried which sounded dull had a rubber jacket. Does that explain something?
Lastly, I ought to explain something about DF aka dissipation factor so we are all singing from the same songsheet. It really only matters where you put real power through a capacitor, which in a HP filter is at the -3db point. So you need voltage and current simultaneously to really stress a capacitor. Thus the 3,300uF electrolytic at the output of a single rail amp into an 8R load only really has to work hard below 30Hz, where it has a significant voltage across it while passing current. Above that, you would expect DF to play little part until you reach a frequency when its inductance gets significant.
For now, I'm sticking to my cheapie Maplin £5 MKPs. But I'm interested.
But I'm sticking to the science. I've had a good look at the first three 2.2uF Mundorfs. $20 Mundorf Supreme, $60 Mundorf Supreme silver/oil, $5 Mundorf MCap are all pretty faultless. All claim DF of 0.00002. Way better than my cheapie MKPs which are a polyester-like 0.001. The better ones are much fatter and rated at 1000V. Some are a mere skinny 250V, and we may fancy them less here.
Having studied the PDF of laser measurements of that odd harmonic acoustic oscillation in the Clarity Caps between 10-30kHz, I reckon that big fat caps are where it's gonna be at for minimising this. It's a bit like a LCR resonance where either end shakes and the middle stays still. So short and fat and massive will resist this best.
Since you can wire an inductive tweeter (0.01-0.09 mH typically) up to a capacitor in a very simple HP filter, you would expect an interaction here. It forms a series LCR which will ring. FWIW, those old Solen MKP capacitors I tried which sounded dull had a rubber jacket. Does that explain something?
Lastly, I ought to explain something about DF aka dissipation factor so we are all singing from the same songsheet. It really only matters where you put real power through a capacitor, which in a HP filter is at the -3db point. So you need voltage and current simultaneously to really stress a capacitor. Thus the 3,300uF electrolytic at the output of a single rail amp into an 8R load only really has to work hard below 30Hz, where it has a significant voltage across it while passing current. Above that, you would expect DF to play little part until you reach a frequency when its inductance gets significant.
For now, I'm sticking to my cheapie Maplin £5 MKPs. But I'm interested.
CC tried to make it look legit and scientific by including the Univ. scholar in the study.
Last edited:
I've put a careful eye over what was actually claimed in the Clarity Cap research, and it's actually inconclusive! I'll tell you why in a minute, but here's a graph from the paper which initially looks exciting.
The AES paper is unavailable to me, but concludes with two SEPARATE conclusions:
Nowhere do I find indication of WHAT was being compared with the more expert listening panel!
All I can find is that listeners were initially asked to compare Electrolytics and some Clarity Cap product. And notes they were almost clueless. Nowhere does it say what the final two capacitors compared were using music familiar to the expert listeners.
This comment helps not one whit, but notice it is described as MODERATE res, not high res, so it's not the "high res" sample.:
Sorry, long post. But no conclusions whatsoever about audible differences between MKPs is made there at all that I can see.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The AES paper is unavailable to me, but concludes with two SEPARATE conclusions:
Nowhere do I find indication of WHAT was being compared with the more expert listening panel!
All I can find is that listeners were initially asked to compare Electrolytics and some Clarity Cap product. And notes they were almost clueless. Nowhere does it say what the final two capacitors compared were using music familiar to the expert listeners.
This comment helps not one whit, but notice it is described as MODERATE res, not high res, so it's not the "high res" sample.:
Sorry, long post. But no conclusions whatsoever about audible differences between MKPs is made there at all that I can see.
Similar arguments to this go on all the time on audio forums. Some people think almost everything sounds the same, while others think lifting a cable off the floor a few inches changes the sound. Quite a few people say that ABX testing is the only way to test for differences (assumung there isn't a measurable difference). I think the best way to test is over a period of time in your own system.
Not so long back, I had a listen to a local guys system. His main amp was a valve design. He swopped the valve amp for a solid state amp and to be honest I stuggled to hear a difference. To him the difference was obvious, but not to me.
Quick AB tests have never taught me anything. I need to live with a system for a period of time before testing components. Once i've lived with a system for long enough, even small changes in sound can be obvious.
As for the OP. I've only compared the standard Mundorf M-cap against Mundorf Supremes. The standard ones are very good value for money. The Supremes do seem to have a bit more top-end air or sparkle, but also sound louder than all the other caps i've tried. Before anyone says that's impossible, do a google search and you'll find i'm not the only one who thinks this.
Not so long back, I had a listen to a local guys system. His main amp was a valve design. He swopped the valve amp for a solid state amp and to be honest I stuggled to hear a difference. To him the difference was obvious, but not to me.
Quick AB tests have never taught me anything. I need to live with a system for a period of time before testing components. Once i've lived with a system for long enough, even small changes in sound can be obvious.
As for the OP. I've only compared the standard Mundorf M-cap against Mundorf Supremes. The standard ones are very good value for money. The Supremes do seem to have a bit more top-end air or sparkle, but also sound louder than all the other caps i've tried. Before anyone says that's impossible, do a google search and you'll find i'm not the only one who thinks this.
Your experience is precisely the same as Tony Gee of humblehomemadehifi's cap evaluation methodology. He installs caps in a speaker and listens to them for a few months before rendering a numerical score. That's why I waited so long for him to give me the results of his evaluations of 3 different voltage caps of the same uF value from the same manufacturer.
I've put a careful eye over what was actually claimed in the Clarity Cap research, and it's actually inconclusive! I'll tell you why in a minute, but here's a graph from the paper which initially looks exciting.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The AES paper is unavailable to me, but concludes with two SEPARATE conclusions:
Nowhere do I find indication of WHAT was being compared with the more expert listening panel!
All I can find is that listeners were initially asked to compare Electrolytics and some Clarity Cap product. And notes they were almost clueless. Nowhere does it say what the final two capacitors compared were using music familiar to the expert listeners.
This comment helps not one whit, but notice it is described as MODERATE res, not high res, so it's not the "high res" sample.:
Sorry, long post. But no conclusions whatsoever about audible differences between MKPs is made there at all that I can see.
I have a copy of that paper. The final panels were comparing two capacitors. One with high mech resonance and the other with low mech. resonance. The exact levels of resonance were not disclosed. They admit the improvement is subtle and thus difficult to detect.
BTW, thanks for the link to the parts connexion CC paper. Some new information there. I suspect they felt obligated to further explain their product in light of the rediculous prices being charged for the MR cap. Perhaps they were looking for a quick ROI on the 'new' technology?
IMO, one of the key process improvements they made in addition to the mettalizing coating technique is basic winding technology. If you study up at the Mundorf site, that's their claim to fame.
Expectation bias pure and simple.Did you use SBT where you had no clue as to which device was which when comparing after the long term? I'm betting you didn't. Explain to me why your ears had to become accustomed to the system one way before you could hear an "obvious" difference in sound? Also have you read this explanation as to perhaps what you "heard" isn't what you think?
Why We Believe
Top end sparkle and louder should be a measurable trait no?
So when I expected things to sound better, but they sounded worse - That was expectation bias, LOL.
It may have been measurable, but I didn't have the gear to do it - I do now though. I'll have to get the measuring gear out to satisfy my own curiosity.
Why not? You expected it to sound different at least, maybe what you did made it measurably worse. What was the component you changed out?
I commend your willingness to do measurements to see if what you changed actually did make a difference. Too many people will get stubborn and defensive and "know what they heard" instead of trying.Let us know what you find out.
It would be nice if we could measure EVERY aspect of acoustics, but we can't. At least not yet.
As has been pointed out with the CC study, cap improvements are subtle at best. So, if fatmarley isn't able to measure a difference, that doesn't automatically mean there wasn't any difference that he or others may have heard.
As has been pointed out with the CC study, cap improvements are subtle at best. So, if fatmarley isn't able to measure a difference, that doesn't automatically mean there wasn't any difference that he or others may have heard.
You are doing it backwards, first you should listen to each of the components until you are familiar with the sound differences and only then should you do an ABX test.
Brighter and louder we can measure.
Our capabilities of measurement are far, far better than our senses. Interpretation is a different matter, especially for acoustic measurements. However, if there's no electrical difference in the signal delivered to the driver terminals when swapping crossover components, there's not going to be an audible difference, unless you want to invoke magic. I take the easy route out in my speakers and use tightly wound, mass-produced caps with decent encapsulation and hard dielectric. No rattles, squeals, or microphonics, but they aren't suitable for showing off to audiophiles.
As you can probably tell from my join date, i've been diying for years. I used to modify Naim kit because it's very easy to get into the boxes and it's also easy to get good results.
I've got a huge box full of components left over from diying my old Naim gear. Once I replaced the Tantalum coupling capacitors in my Naim pre-amp for Wima polyester caps and although polyester caps measure better, they sound worse (to my ears), with rolled off frequency extremes and a dull midrange. That's just one example of many (BC128 were better than both, assuming you had the grounding and power supply, well sorted first)
I said to myself I wouldn't get into any more of these arguments, because you will never believe me, or convince me that i'm imagining what I hear. I know we can be fooled into hearing things that are not there and the reason I know is because it's happened to me on more than one occasion. Here's another one you can use to convince people they are imagining what they hear: The McGurk Effect
I consider myself an honest person, so will report my findings in this thread when I get a chance. It wont be for a while though.
befriend Google today...
Ahem, let us not perpetuate myth....
Silver is around 6% more conductive than Copper and only tarnishes (corrodes ??) in the presence of sulphides so if sealed within sulphide-free materials it will not tarnish.
Besides any tarnish has the same conductivity as Silver anyway, so it just looks bad it doesn't 'sound' bad.
Silver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5863373_copper-vs_-silver-wire-conductivity.html
Tarnish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ahem, let us not perpetuate myth....
Silver is around 6% more conductive than Copper and only tarnishes (corrodes ??) in the presence of sulphides so if sealed within sulphide-free materials it will not tarnish.
Besides any tarnish has the same conductivity as Silver anyway, so it just looks bad it doesn't 'sound' bad.
Silver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5863373_copper-vs_-silver-wire-conductivity.html
Tarnish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.