Andrew T,
Well, I am not a prominent member, but so do I. In effect, SCIENTIFIC FACT supports that statement. But as said and experienced .... wish I had a - well not even a large amount - for every occasion this is glibly ignored. Might then have been able to afford the fare required to come meet you and SY.
Azazello,
Not to be unkind, but the cliché that "no component is perfect, so every component must deteriorate the performance" is one of those many nice convincing sounding ones totally ignoring the application. Sure, it can be proved if one goes to the n-th decimal. But this is audio. Mercifully (in this case at least) human hearing is limited. Let us not be academic to the point of ignoring that.
What Sy et al imply is that folks go into minute detail to point out shortcomings while overlooking obvious matters. One would expect that those being so analytical as to perceive that "no component is perfect", would also be capable of realising that normally a coupling cap is simply a d.c. block. Its capacitive characteristics and whatever minutiae are theoretically correct, has nothing to do with audio (but acknowledging what DF96 said).
If you and others have proof of the opposite, would you kindly share that? (And please, "I tied a knot in my speaker cable and it sounded better" does not constitute proof.)
Well, I am not a prominent member, but so do I. In effect, SCIENTIFIC FACT supports that statement. But as said and experienced .... wish I had a - well not even a large amount - for every occasion this is glibly ignored. Might then have been able to afford the fare required to come meet you and SY.
Azazello,
Not to be unkind, but the cliché that "no component is perfect, so every component must deteriorate the performance" is one of those many nice convincing sounding ones totally ignoring the application. Sure, it can be proved if one goes to the n-th decimal. But this is audio. Mercifully (in this case at least) human hearing is limited. Let us not be academic to the point of ignoring that.
What Sy et al imply is that folks go into minute detail to point out shortcomings while overlooking obvious matters. One would expect that those being so analytical as to perceive that "no component is perfect", would also be capable of realising that normally a coupling cap is simply a d.c. block. Its capacitive characteristics and whatever minutiae are theoretically correct, has nothing to do with audio (but acknowledging what DF96 said).
If you and others have proof of the opposite, would you kindly share that? (And please, "I tied a knot in my speaker cable and it sounded better" does not constitute proof.)
because believers in caps think that science has not yet discovered the reasons for them, they are still waiting.....
but i believe they will be waiting for ages to come, for a scientific explanation that will never come, unless the "ancient aliens" come back and give explanations....
Even some of us non-eminent types would support this viewpoint
In my case because of my own experimentation and results, which were repeatable, not necessarily because of any any expert knowledge of the science of the matter.
.............unless the "ancient aliens" come back and give explanations....
Ha...Ha...! Nice one. However you should consider that they may not even use our 'audible' band for their communication.......they may not even need 'sound' as we know it ! In which case they would only wonder what all the fuss is about these 'capacitors' !
Are all FT-1's magnetic?
That's what I want to know. I just got some FT-1's in 2200pF for use in deemphasis circuit. I just ordered them as a roll of the dice to see if they would be non-magnetic, ordering a second bunch of polystyrene's as backup.
From what I've heard in the past, Russian Teflons are (nearly?) always ferromagnetic, which I believe would defeat the benefits of using Teflon (though teflon dielectric would have it's usually wonderfully clean characteristics, the ferromagnetism would add a crusty edge, spoiling the pudding).
A refrigerator magnet shows no attraction to the leads or the case. The leads are thin and flexible. I plan to re-check with stronger magnet, and especially in the region where the leads are joined to the case.
That's what I want to know. I just got some FT-1's in 2200pF for use in deemphasis circuit. I just ordered them as a roll of the dice to see if they would be non-magnetic, ordering a second bunch of polystyrene's as backup.
From what I've heard in the past, Russian Teflons are (nearly?) always ferromagnetic, which I believe would defeat the benefits of using Teflon (though teflon dielectric would have it's usually wonderfully clean characteristics, the ferromagnetism would add a crusty edge, spoiling the pudding).
A refrigerator magnet shows no attraction to the leads or the case. The leads are thin and flexible. I plan to re-check with stronger magnet, and especially in the region where the leads are joined to the case.
I've always wondered about this and also the fact that large sonic differences are claimed mostly for tube amps. Are the caps really large enough in value that no signal voltage appears across them? Has anybody put a diff amp across them and looked? I have the diff amp, but no tube amps to look at!
There are many to choose from, Google is your friend.
List of alloys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mike
Rant warning
ACH NO!
We are now adding component lead magnetism to the mix?? If this is anything more than anecdotal (A told B who told C who tells me they suspect ....) - where can I read about this revelation?
What surprises (I almost said 'irritates') is the total ignoring of repeated posts submitted explaining electronic basics as simple as 5+7=12, as if such don't exist. This sadly smacks of "It is impossible to change entrenched beliefs by facts." I wish someone will explain to me how folks using equipment designed according to and only functioning because of electronic basics (thus acknowledging the same), can at some point suddenly do a 180° and deny those basics. I understand capacitors - have been working with them for a half century - but I do not understand that.
ACH NO!
We are now adding component lead magnetism to the mix?? If this is anything more than anecdotal (A told B who told C who tells me they suspect ....) - where can I read about this revelation?
What surprises (I almost said 'irritates') is the total ignoring of repeated posts submitted explaining electronic basics as simple as 5+7=12, as if such don't exist. This sadly smacks of "It is impossible to change entrenched beliefs by facts." I wish someone will explain to me how folks using equipment designed according to and only functioning because of electronic basics (thus acknowledging the same), can at some point suddenly do a 180° and deny those basics.
I understand capacitors - have been working with them for a half century - but I do not understand that.
I totally agree Johan, it always amazed me that many respected commercial products have ferrous metal components in the signal path but it never seemed to get in the way of high praise from the pundits, but if it's known that a hobbyist does the same, it can't possibly sound good. I used metal film resistors with magnetic leads for years and have never found them to effect the sound at all, maybe I'm delusional?
Mike
Why the leads might be important
I brought up the leads because iron leads are extremely common in Russian teflon caps, and like many I believe iron leading to be an issue even greater than the differences between, say, teflon and polystyrene films--which are both quite good actually. I'm grateful if it's true as now seems that my FT-1's have silver alloy leads (likely silver plus copper) rather than being ferromagnetic iron.
There's really no doubt that ferromagnetic parts add (miniscule) amounts of nonlinear distortion through the process of magnetic hysteresis. This is true also of chokes, transformers, etc., where the iron is in the magnetic circuit and not directly connected. Lots of audiophile designers have nearly banished iron of all kinds even close to active circuitry. While others embrace iron core inductors, transformers, etc., and often eschew comparable active circuits.
The only question might be, how important is this to audio equipment? Likely the added levels of distortion are very small. But you may have noticed that many designers and DIYers like to push levels of measurable distortion well below the 1% or so that is proven audible in blind testing, or similar ideas, such as complex circuits creating higher order distortions are far worse (which is provable to some degree, though I haven't seen any quantification from blind testing that shows that 11th order needs to be below 0.001% for example). Many take the position that any source of distortion that is easily removable should be. That's pretty much where I am. I don't claim that such differences are of huge importance, easily audible, enjoyment destroying, or part of manufacturer's conspiracy to stick us with bad sound. But when I take the trouble to do things, I try to do them right, or at least as best as I can. Compromising for the sake of cheapness is destructive to my frame of mind, if nothing else. The actual limits of hearing are not easy to get at, and current beliefs about what is "good enough" could be shown to be wrong someday.
I brought up the leads because iron leads are extremely common in Russian teflon caps, and like many I believe iron leading to be an issue even greater than the differences between, say, teflon and polystyrene films--which are both quite good actually. I'm grateful if it's true as now seems that my FT-1's have silver alloy leads (likely silver plus copper) rather than being ferromagnetic iron.
There's really no doubt that ferromagnetic parts add (miniscule) amounts of nonlinear distortion through the process of magnetic hysteresis. This is true also of chokes, transformers, etc., where the iron is in the magnetic circuit and not directly connected. Lots of audiophile designers have nearly banished iron of all kinds even close to active circuitry. While others embrace iron core inductors, transformers, etc., and often eschew comparable active circuits.
The only question might be, how important is this to audio equipment? Likely the added levels of distortion are very small. But you may have noticed that many designers and DIYers like to push levels of measurable distortion well below the 1% or so that is proven audible in blind testing, or similar ideas, such as complex circuits creating higher order distortions are far worse (which is provable to some degree, though I haven't seen any quantification from blind testing that shows that 11th order needs to be below 0.001% for example). Many take the position that any source of distortion that is easily removable should be. That's pretty much where I am. I don't claim that such differences are of huge importance, easily audible, enjoyment destroying, or part of manufacturer's conspiracy to stick us with bad sound. But when I take the trouble to do things, I try to do them right, or at least as best as I can. Compromising for the sake of cheapness is destructive to my frame of mind, if nothing else. The actual limits of hearing are not easy to get at, and current beliefs about what is "good enough" could be shown to be wrong someday.
Cap Hype?
I don't know what to believe about caps and sound quality.....in this thread there are comments on that topic and various dielectrics and so forth...
what do u think of this then?
Atlantic Quality Design, Inc., The Truth about Tone Capacitors
I don't know what to believe about caps and sound quality.....in this thread there are comments on that topic and various dielectrics and so forth...
what do u think of this then?
Atlantic Quality Design, Inc., The Truth about Tone Capacitors
THE factor is DA
It didn't look interesting. I believe the most serious defect relevant to audio among capacitors is dielectric absorption (DA).
Dielectric absorption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with dissipation factor (which is more important to RF circuits). DA causes capacitors not to release their charge in "linear" fashion as an ideal capacitor would. Instead, they hold on to some charge in constipated fashion, takes some time (more that would be predicted on the basis of internal resistance) to get it all out into a dead short. I remember reading about this in an article by Richard Marsh around 1980. He rated the dielectric absorption in capacitors like this, from best to worst:
teflon
polystyrene
polypropylene
polyester (aka mylar)
tantalum
aluminum (electrolytic)
It's easy to understand how this property arises from the electrochemical properties of the substances involved. Teflon, for example, has very balanced charge, hence there is no molecular movement related to charge or discharge. Polystyrene is an odd one, because it has high electron moments, but everything is held rigidly in place by those same moments. Polypropylene is more like teflon again, rather uniform in electronic charge, it's just not as uniform as teflon. And so on. And I could have this somewhat mixed up, but it is ultimately related to the electrochemical properties of the dielectrics.
Now many people strongly believe this is highly audible. I confess I failed my first double blind test on this, which I performed on myself using a trick box, in 1982. But that hasn't kept me from wanting the best capacitors. I recently picked up a pair of unused surplus 10uF teflons made by RTI. If you've seen the 1uF audiophile teflons selling for $400-$700 (V-Cap), you realize how valuable 10uF teflon caps are.
Now serious wire manufacturers, such as Belden, know about dielectrics and their electrochemistry. Which is why very few serious wire products use the vinyl common in very low priced cables. Instead, they nearly always use polyethylene, which is somewhere in between polypropylene and teflon in electrochemical properties. Polyethylene doesn't lend itself to capacitor construction, however, though it makes a great dielectric for wire. Dupont and others have attempted to capture the Teflon reputation with an inferior product trademarked as Teflon PE. Teflon PE is more like polyethylene than actual PTFE (Teflon), and may be slightly inferior to polyethylene, though it is found in very expensive wire because it's easier to make wire with than actual PTFE.
I don't know what to believe about caps and sound quality.....in this thread there are comments on that topic and various dielectrics and so forth...
what do u think of this then?
Atlantic Quality Design, Inc., The Truth about Tone Capacitors
It didn't look interesting. I believe the most serious defect relevant to audio among capacitors is dielectric absorption (DA).
Dielectric absorption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with dissipation factor (which is more important to RF circuits). DA causes capacitors not to release their charge in "linear" fashion as an ideal capacitor would. Instead, they hold on to some charge in constipated fashion, takes some time (more that would be predicted on the basis of internal resistance) to get it all out into a dead short. I remember reading about this in an article by Richard Marsh around 1980. He rated the dielectric absorption in capacitors like this, from best to worst:
teflon
polystyrene
polypropylene
polyester (aka mylar)
tantalum
aluminum (electrolytic)
It's easy to understand how this property arises from the electrochemical properties of the substances involved. Teflon, for example, has very balanced charge, hence there is no molecular movement related to charge or discharge. Polystyrene is an odd one, because it has high electron moments, but everything is held rigidly in place by those same moments. Polypropylene is more like teflon again, rather uniform in electronic charge, it's just not as uniform as teflon. And so on. And I could have this somewhat mixed up, but it is ultimately related to the electrochemical properties of the dielectrics.
Now many people strongly believe this is highly audible. I confess I failed my first double blind test on this, which I performed on myself using a trick box, in 1982. But that hasn't kept me from wanting the best capacitors. I recently picked up a pair of unused surplus 10uF teflons made by RTI. If you've seen the 1uF audiophile teflons selling for $400-$700 (V-Cap), you realize how valuable 10uF teflon caps are.
Now serious wire manufacturers, such as Belden, know about dielectrics and their electrochemistry. Which is why very few serious wire products use the vinyl common in very low priced cables. Instead, they nearly always use polyethylene, which is somewhere in between polypropylene and teflon in electrochemical properties. Polyethylene doesn't lend itself to capacitor construction, however, though it makes a great dielectric for wire. Dupont and others have attempted to capture the Teflon reputation with an inferior product trademarked as Teflon PE. Teflon PE is more like polyethylene than actual PTFE (Teflon), and may be slightly inferior to polyethylene, though it is found in very expensive wire because it's easier to make wire with than actual PTFE.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.