First, there's a number of variables EE's use to evaluate capacitors. (e.g., Dielectric absorption factor, equivalent series resistance, inductance, resonant frequency, impedance characteristics, dissipation factor, insulation resistance etc., just to name a few. However, who's to say that your measuring equipment is calibrated the same as my measuring equipment. Or that your testing protocols and conditions are the same as mine. Thus all of these factors should considered vastly "subjective" at best. My advice is to select your capacitors by weight. ~Yes weight. Whatevs weighs the most, use that.
For example here is a pic tube preamp I'm currently upgrading the coupling caps in (along the the Aragon 47k - I often have parallel projects in motion). As you can see: We have a selection of .27uf capacitors. The Solen Tin film & foil (a .047 & .22 combined in parallel to give us the needed .27uf), A Quicksilver audio Aluminum film & Foil, and finally a Mundorf Mcap Aluminum EVO Metalized PP.
In the following pic you'll observe the differences in weight The Solen SM film and foils at 13.1g, the Quicksilver at 7.8g and finally the Mudorf are the lightest at 3.8g.
Clearly, the heavier caps are better because they are heavier.
View attachment 1086348
View attachment 1086347
Surely that is relative to the mass of the foil element involved? (Assumption here that the foil is the majority of mass).
Actually, the NOS Croatian Paper and Lead foils are getting very good reviews. Jk.
But of course!
Audist. I didn't catch that application your using the said capacitor in. I've used the Mcap supremes as coupling caps and they work very well. I've also used the Supreme EVOs and the Mcap oil EVOs with very good results in speaker crossovers. The silver oils are known to very very good. There are a lot of other good caps out there too. Generally, I prefer to use a film and foil over a metalized polypropylene if it fits in as film and foils tend to be much larger. The Mundorf ZN is a film and foil is very compact and I believe are the same OEM as the Solen SA/SM film and foils. These are very compact and sound very good if they meet your voltage requirements. Note: Sonic Craft is closing out their supply of Mudorf caps. You can get a super deal Supreme silver oils and/or others there now.
Thanks for sharing. However, the author falls into so many common logical fallacies in his argument its barely worth addressing. I mean he'd be better of attempting to hold water in bucket made from a chain link fence then support his argument. Any ding-dong can take a $99 oscilloscope do some sweeps and say "yep! measures the same sounds the same".
Take two musical instruments a Saxophone and Clarnet both can play the Note in C both at 440Hz do they sound the same? They'll measure the same but they certainly will not sound the same. At lest they shouldn't! Why do you think that is?
Further more, the no testing equipment is capable of capturing the same nuance of the human ear. The best we can do is capture a few basic perimeters and element baselines which are subjective in themselves due to a endless list of variables, including the weather. I mean the argument is beyond ridiculous. You really think theirs no discernible differences in coupling caps or components, if my $5 clock radio measures lower distortion then a single ended 300b tube amp are you going to suggest that they sound the same? Or the "lower distortion" clock radio is better because it "measured" better? Its a nihilistic thought process and in that case why even be in this hobby at all? Like I said go listen to refrigerators or test tones.
I mean either there's a serious hearing impairment or the authors system is incapable of reproducing sound. Respectfully, its just sad. If anyone has this inclination I'd really urge them to have some hearing test done or better yet go hear some live music, something the emotionally moves you, and then ponder why the recorded version on your clock radio isn't quite the same. Again. I apprecated your post but strongly disagree.
Take two musical instruments a Saxophone and Clarnet both can play the Note in C both at 440Hz do they sound the same? They'll measure the same but they certainly will not sound the same. At lest they shouldn't! Why do you think that is?
Further more, the no testing equipment is capable of capturing the same nuance of the human ear. The best we can do is capture a few basic perimeters and element baselines which are subjective in themselves due to a endless list of variables, including the weather. I mean the argument is beyond ridiculous. You really think theirs no discernible differences in coupling caps or components, if my $5 clock radio measures lower distortion then a single ended 300b tube amp are you going to suggest that they sound the same? Or the "lower distortion" clock radio is better because it "measured" better? Its a nihilistic thought process and in that case why even be in this hobby at all? Like I said go listen to refrigerators or test tones.
I mean either there's a serious hearing impairment or the authors system is incapable of reproducing sound. Respectfully, its just sad. If anyone has this inclination I'd really urge them to have some hearing test done or better yet go hear some live music, something the emotionally moves you, and then ponder why the recorded version on your clock radio isn't quite the same. Again. I apprecated your post but strongly disagree.
Dropping rotten animal carcasses in an Amazonia river is a sure way to bait piranha.Gosh. I was totally baiting/trolling the EEs out there with my "pick your capacitors by weight" and other comments. You all awake out there? Forget your vitamins this morning?
Dropping rotten "tech ideas" in an Audio/Electronics thread is sure to bait the EEs, so ... what´s your point?
middle c on an instrument is not 440Hz. It is a set of frequencies including 440Hz as a fundamental. That set will change between the instances of instrument models and even over temperature and humidity.
So are you suggesting audiophile caps should be treated as a Stradivarius due to the set of frequencies they impart to the tone?
I just wish audiophile components had a large datasheet with test configurations and results. Along with the batch distribution figures, ageing variance etc.
So are you suggesting audiophile caps should be treated as a Stradivarius due to the set of frequencies they impart to the tone?
I just wish audiophile components had a large datasheet with test configurations and results. Along with the batch distribution figures, ageing variance etc.
Last edited:
They certainly will not measure the same, at all.
Any spectrum analysis will show huge differences.
So, what´s your next nonsense argument?
Not wishing to pick hairs here, but several studies have shown that it's changes in timbre over time that define the characteristic of an instrument. Remove the envelope of a piano and it's really difficult to distinguish from a trumpet or a violin. Measuring anything steady state has limitations!
440Hz is A (A4, specifically), not C (assuming standard modern tuning).
It can be very difficult to figure out exactly what to measure and/or how to interpret measurements, but I don't at all buy the idea that there are audible phenomena that are fundamentally unmeasurable.
Typically that is entropy means over time energy is lost and i’d expect that to be non-linear and related to leakage through the spectral range.
Why so hostile Frances? Actually, It's really not such bad protocol. One person got it. The assumption is the mass of the foil is greater adding metric seems to complement the sonics of the unit.
A spectrum analysis? Lol. Hey! Sell your stereo eqptment and spend more time staring at time domain wave forms. That's nice.
But understanding why something sounds good is the way we make better sounding things.
Not unmeasurable. It's cognitive bias in the assumption that we already are or are able to measure the data that matters.
Datasheet with test configuration, batch distribution figures and ageing variances... No offense, but Its sounds like (pun intended) QA testing on HVAC systems. Wait, what forum was this again?
Of course! But the issue presented was that there is no human difference (perceivable) based in/on non-human subjects using or measured with measuring equipment he assumes is objective and exhaustive. The author then flips his argument moving to use test subjects with no objective size, sample or control group. Running some test tones and fliping a switch back and forth for some buddies is not objective test protocols. No where does the authorlist what stereo equipment is being used that I could find. You can't have it both ways. I can't believe people keep falling for this stuff.