No, that is not an accurate understanding. If a cap's specs are good, the circuit will operate as intended, and the capacitor will contribute nothing audible. That's very different than the vague "sounds good." The analogy to beer is entriely inapt.
I actually have bothered to do some rigorous ears-only testing of coupling caps. That removed much fantasy from my thinking. You might want to try my experiment for yourself.
Grab the popcorn and put the feet up
When Stuart talks about 'the Wima caps' I think it is perfectly clear he is referring to the MKP10 which he referenced in a previous post.
While not being as critical of the MKP10 as Stuart (they have become a good value for money industry standard for many manufacturers) I certainly would not regard them as the ne plus ultra of caps.
The 73-16 represents another rung up the performance ladder, and I am sure their construction quality would easily match that of the MKP10. The old blue cylindrical ERO (which I believe morphed into Wima) MKP1845 also improves on the MKP10 and represents one of the best bargains out there; although recent prices on ebay appear to indicate that some people may have already caught on. Both do a great 'what goes in is what comes out job', with none of the artificiality of many boutique caps.
The reaction of naysayers who have never tried (or even measured) 73 -16 never ceases to amaze and amuse me, and I have found this thread a source of constant entertainment.
If you can source a translation of the article 'D.Gorshenin, I.Rogov - Comparison of AC capacitors in the crossover - "Radio" № 8/2009 s. 12, 13; Number 9/2009 p.15-17, № 10/2009 pp.16-18' it may prove rather enlightening. Maybe Wavebourn can assist.
Anyway, that's it from me. I shall now retire to the armchair with some popcorn and watch the irreconcilable objectivist/subjectivist debate take its usual merry path.
When Stuart talks about 'the Wima caps' I think it is perfectly clear he is referring to the MKP10 which he referenced in a previous post.
While not being as critical of the MKP10 as Stuart (they have become a good value for money industry standard for many manufacturers) I certainly would not regard them as the ne plus ultra of caps.
The 73-16 represents another rung up the performance ladder, and I am sure their construction quality would easily match that of the MKP10. The old blue cylindrical ERO (which I believe morphed into Wima) MKP1845 also improves on the MKP10 and represents one of the best bargains out there; although recent prices on ebay appear to indicate that some people may have already caught on. Both do a great 'what goes in is what comes out job', with none of the artificiality of many boutique caps.
The reaction of naysayers who have never tried (or even measured) 73 -16 never ceases to amaze and amuse me, and I have found this thread a source of constant entertainment.
If you can source a translation of the article 'D.Gorshenin, I.Rogov - Comparison of AC capacitors in the crossover - "Radio" № 8/2009 s. 12, 13; Number 9/2009 p.15-17, № 10/2009 pp.16-18' it may prove rather enlightening. Maybe Wavebourn can assist.
Anyway, that's it from me. I shall now retire to the armchair with some popcorn and watch the irreconcilable objectivist/subjectivist debate take its usual merry path.
Last edited:
Again, I want to distinguish "good" from "accurate" (in the sense of output sounding like the input). If an amplifier using capacitor "X" is sonically transparent using ears only, then "improvements" in cap "X" are either illusory or go in the direction of an effects box. My goal is to have the output sound like the input, no more, no less. If someone is aiming for a coloration, my comments are indeed not relevant.
I think we essentially agree. The saving grace of the MKP10 is that is suffers sins of omission rather than commission, and in so doing retains a sense of neutrality. The other two caps I mentioned simply offer less omission, period.
Case closed from my perspective. Have fun shadow boxing
Case closed from my perspective. Have fun shadow boxing
Last edited:
Is the MKP10 the version that uses three series connected metalised films to create the composite capacitor?
That requires twice the capacitance in each half (four times the total capacitance) that when series connected become the specified value.
Does this double up (or quadruple) the losses and parasitics?
What about not using these self healing, high voltage, types and selecting MKP2?
That requires twice the capacitance in each half (four times the total capacitance) that when series connected become the specified value.
Does this double up (or quadruple) the losses and parasitics?
What about not using these self healing, high voltage, types and selecting MKP2?
This is the article I was referring to. Copy and type the link into google.
http://www.electroclub.info/other/conders0.htm
Then do a translation. The prospect of a DBT followed by a thorough statistical analysis should have SY salivating.
http://www.electroclub.info/other/conders0.htm
Then do a translation. The prospect of a DBT followed by a thorough statistical analysis should have SY salivating.
A capacitor feed to a speaker is a different thing than a coupling cap. The former has high current and significant audio signal across it. The latter has low current and no significant audio signal across it. Getting a non-null result from the former is plausible, the latter, not so much.
That said, their results look pretty random.
That said, their results look pretty random.
What I found particularly interesting was that the degree of variance in scores for the 73-16 was lower than the others.
The higher degree of variance for the Jantzen (and to a certain extent the Mundorf) suggests to me that they may be manipulating the sound more than the K73-16; in manner that was favourable to some listeners and unfavourable for others. YMMV.
As the author states a 98% probability result vs the Mundorf is case closed, and 90% against the Jantzen is still pretty good although I concede it fails to meet the standard 95% criterion.
I agree about your point about the difference between high and low signal scenarios, but I still think the test shows that the K73-16 is far from the pile of doggie doos that some have suggested it must be based on pure speculation.
The higher degree of variance for the Jantzen (and to a certain extent the Mundorf) suggests to me that they may be manipulating the sound more than the K73-16; in manner that was favourable to some listeners and unfavourable for others. YMMV.
As the author states a 98% probability result vs the Mundorf is case closed, and 90% against the Jantzen is still pretty good although I concede it fails to meet the standard 95% criterion.
I agree about your point about the difference between high and low signal scenarios, but I still think the test shows that the K73-16 is far from the pile of doggie doos that some have suggested it must be based on pure speculation.
Intresting claim ,how do you know sound of input or original signal. No measured changes compared to output ? Really???
Papparazzi
Sy,
your expressing a theoretical point since you have by your own admission never heard these caps.
I said that I find these caps to have the same neutrality as the naked Vishays, it doesn't mean they 'sound good' or 'bad' to my ears and easily better even some expensive caps I have used in the past, perhaps it might be a good idea to re-look at the original poster.
There was a poster on Headfi who made the statement that 'he did'nt trust his own ears but relied completely on measuring instruments' when I asked him who sat down to listen to music in his home was it him or the measuring instruments - he did'nt come back with a reply - strange that.
your expressing a theoretical point since you have by your own admission never heard these caps.
I said that I find these caps to have the same neutrality as the naked Vishays, it doesn't mean they 'sound good' or 'bad' to my ears and easily better even some expensive caps I have used in the past, perhaps it might be a good idea to re-look at the original poster.
There was a poster on Headfi who made the statement that 'he did'nt trust his own ears but relied completely on measuring instruments' when I asked him who sat down to listen to music in his home was it him or the measuring instruments - he did'nt come back with a reply - strange that.
I think I've addressed this. It goes well beyond "theoretical" and into "experimental." And I'm talking about actual experiments, not peeking. See, for example, my "Testing One... Two... Three" article in Linear Audio.
Paste this link in google and translate. It's the complete article i referenced in a previous post which includes the measurement component. The microphonics results and conclusions on the role of dielectrics makes interesting reading.
Çâó÷àíèå êîíäåíñàòîðîâ â ôèëüòðàõ ÀÑ
Real scientific measurements rather than manufacturers' sales spin puts a slightly different perspective on the importance of certain parameters on the effect of capacitor performance.
Çâó÷àíèå êîíäåíñàòîðîâ â ôèëüòðàõ ÀÑ
Real scientific measurements rather than manufacturers' sales spin puts a slightly different perspective on the importance of certain parameters on the effect of capacitor performance.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.