Custom Electronics tested some teflon oils against other caps in an audio shootout. I believe the caps were used for interstage coupling. You can read the results under the News & Links menu here.
By the way, the so-called 5 Star line are premium capacitors that measure and, to my ear, sound better than other teflons on the market.
Arizona Capacitors merely mentioned to me they've played with teflon in oil caps and that their customers prefer them.
By the way, the so-called 5 Star line are premium capacitors that measure and, to my ear, sound better than other teflons on the market.
Arizona Capacitors merely mentioned to me they've played with teflon in oil caps and that their customers prefer them.
ak_47_boy said:
Then be scientific and prove that all persons who say they hear something don't.
"Martha, I think the cows are coming home ..."
Actually, a truly scientific person would, in the face of considerable (call it observational) evidence, be a little more skeptical about their own certain opinions.
I used to work in a research firm that designed prototype wireline tool for the oil industry and all of are electrical components were always burned in before the tool was shipped to the customers. They actually found that there would be less failures in the feild if this was done.
There has to be some science in it the prcess I mean higher frequencies causing the dielectric to adjust it self so to say air pockets btween the foil and dielectric moving these things would all effect sound through put.
Nick
There has to be some science in it the prcess I mean higher frequencies causing the dielectric to adjust it self so to say air pockets btween the foil and dielectric moving these things would all effect sound through put.
Nick
I don't doubt that at all, Nick. Anything that actually exists is subject to science, though some things are subject only theoretically so because of the lack of proper measuring tools or means, or the lack of a sufficiently robust theory to encompass the thing in question. I might add that, in science, one normally begins with an observation, then pursues or expands measuring or theory to explain the observation. Saying "something doesn't exist until science proves it" is anti-scientific in the important sense of putting an not inconsiderable scientific cart before the horse.
If you're going to badger forum members having a civil discussion about perceived differences between capacitors at least display some respect for the method you claim to espouse by providing the peer-reviewed references supporting your certainty. I'll settle for references to properly conducted tests at this point since in years of asking not a one has ponied up. Otherwise you're only pretending at science. And Wavebourn, you're way overestimating your powers of illusion.
I did conduct a double blind capacitor comparison test about 15yrs ago, on some witting victims, err volunteers. 
The caps in question were in the output circuit of the line stage cathode follower in one of my early over the top designs and there were three different types of capacitors (stereo pairs) all switched by toggles arranged so as to eliminate the pop when switching.
One pair were generic electrolytics, one pair were big MIT RTX (now REL RTX) and one pair were CDE WMF. All were 1uF IIRC and the amplifier input impedance was 100K.
Interestingly enough my GF at the time who was not an audiophile reliably picked up the differences 100% of the time. The next day at least 2 of the 3 additional listeners averaged better than 90%. The third achieved the same level of accuracy as my GF. While this was not a large test the switches were not visible to the audience at any time, and about every second or third instance I did not select a different capacitor. So this would qualify I think as a reasonably rigorous if small test.
Incidentally everyone preferred the RTX by quite a margin, better detail and audibly cleaner presentation. Readily Explainable by much lower DA/DF/ESR than the other two pairs.
Personally I spend more money on coupling caps than anything other than output tubes, chokes and transformers. Quality here has a profound effect on the overall performance of the device in question, and unfortunately for me exotic teflons really float my boat. My last 300B amplifier was initially saddled with rel rtx and jensen pio, while good it was not as good as the ones I remembered from my last commercial build - until I was able to get some good teflons. (Vcaps)
Empiricism has a major role to play in science, people like Darwin based their theories on observation, only much later did the scientific proof appear to vindicate him. Just because we can't explain what we observe rationally does not immediately invalid it - it might, but then again the explanation might be around the corner waiting for someone open minded enough to find it.
Dick Marsh sort of started the whole boutique capacitor thing 20+ yrs ago, and IIRC he is a very good theoretical EE.
My two cents worth here...
The caps in question were in the output circuit of the line stage cathode follower in one of my early over the top designs and there were three different types of capacitors (stereo pairs) all switched by toggles arranged so as to eliminate the pop when switching.One pair were generic electrolytics, one pair were big MIT RTX (now REL RTX) and one pair were CDE WMF. All were 1uF IIRC and the amplifier input impedance was 100K.
Interestingly enough my GF at the time who was not an audiophile reliably picked up the differences 100% of the time. The next day at least 2 of the 3 additional listeners averaged better than 90%. The third achieved the same level of accuracy as my GF. While this was not a large test the switches were not visible to the audience at any time, and about every second or third instance I did not select a different capacitor. So this would qualify I think as a reasonably rigorous if small test.
Incidentally everyone preferred the RTX by quite a margin, better detail and audibly cleaner presentation. Readily Explainable by much lower DA/DF/ESR than the other two pairs.
Personally I spend more money on coupling caps than anything other than output tubes, chokes and transformers. Quality here has a profound effect on the overall performance of the device in question, and unfortunately for me exotic teflons really float my boat. My last 300B amplifier was initially saddled with rel rtx and jensen pio, while good it was not as good as the ones I remembered from my last commercial build - until I was able to get some good teflons. (Vcaps)
Empiricism has a major role to play in science, people like Darwin based their theories on observation, only much later did the scientific proof appear to vindicate him. Just because we can't explain what we observe rationally does not immediately invalid it - it might, but then again the explanation might be around the corner waiting for someone open minded enough to find it.
Dick Marsh sort of started the whole boutique capacitor thing 20+ yrs ago, and IIRC he is a very good theoretical EE.
My two cents worth here...
Zibi said:
Differences between different capacitors is Explainable and Measureable. There is definitely something to this since replacing a 1.0uF electrolytic coupling capacitor in a solid state amp with a 1.0uF AuriCap made a big difference that was obvious from the get-go.
As to whether or not it makes a big difference in any particular topology, is anybody's guess. IMHO: it makes more of a difference when gNFB is not used (the coupling capacitor in the sand amp was outside the NFB loop). If applying gNFB, this will correct for nonlinearities of all sorts, including the ones originating in capacitors.
So if you're using gNFB, then you can save the expense of those $Pricey "boutique" capacitors. (FWIW: I tend to favour AuriCaps -- not excessively expen$ive, and they do work as advertised -- unlike a whole bunch of audiodamnphoolery out there.)
Save the expensive Teflon or PiO stuff for your open loop SET projects, and use them where they'll do the most good.
Zibi, I've spent considerable time evaluating capacitor sonics. I could probably not only distinguish that a capacitor has been changed, but probably could name the dielectric material itself. I can hear the contribution of electrolytics with even a train rumbling by.
I find the process of distinguishing sonic differences not much different than distinguishing differences in taste, among other things, as in wine, for instance. Such ability, like anything else in life, is merely a product of practice.
Why not begin with the assumption that everything affects the sound? That assumption is theoretically more defensible than the reverse and can lead to fruitful investigation---including of one's assumptions about, among other things, one's ability to hear and name sonic differences.
I find the process of distinguishing sonic differences not much different than distinguishing differences in taste, among other things, as in wine, for instance. Such ability, like anything else in life, is merely a product of practice.
Why not begin with the assumption that everything affects the sound? That assumption is theoretically more defensible than the reverse and can lead to fruitful investigation---including of one's assumptions about, among other things, one's ability to hear and name sonic differences.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.