At the top of page 7 of this thread, you will find a post from me outlining the general procedure that I use when I want to test a new board layout, a new component, a modified component, and so on.
Perhaps 10 years ago, I visted two electronic component manufacturers in quick succession. One made electret elements, and the other made electrolytic capacitors. Based on what I saw and was told on these separate field trips, I decided that it would be worth experimenting in modifying elecrolytic capacitors by changing the amount of compression and damping encountered by the metal can, and listening to the results using the methods that I described previously.
I recall that in this particular case I made up about 10 visually identical units, treated the electrolytic capacitors differently in each one, sealed them up, mixed them around, and labelled them randomly. I left them powered up for about 10 days, and listened while making notes.
Once I had finished noting my subjective impressions, I boxed up all of the units (without my listening notes), and sent them on to another person in charge of listening in our organization (at that time, I think there were 4 or 5 of us who formed a "listening panel". He also listened while writing down his subjective impressions, and once he had finished, sent the units on to the next person, and so on.
When the last person had finished, the units were sent back to our main workroom, we each brought in our listening notes, compared our notes to see what each of us thought of the sound of unit J, 7, *, etc. We then opened up the sealed units to see what was inside them, and figure out what modification was contributing to what sort of sonic change.
On the whole, we picked the completely peeled capacitors as offering the greatest, least ambiguous subjective sonic improvement for the least effort. We also concluded that it was better not to use the commonly supplied metal bands to secure the capacitors (changes in this area yielded measurable differences in distortion levels). Some other techniques were rejected because they resulted in divided opinions among our listening staff, were inaudible, or made the sound worse, while other techniques were deemed sonically worthwhile but likely to be too much of a PITA during production.
Even today, in my current products, some of the electrolytic capacitors have peeled sheaths.
But not all.
Feel free to experiment, gather your own data, and draw your own conclusions.
Likely a lot more productive than arguing.
regards, jonathan carr
Perhaps 10 years ago, I visted two electronic component manufacturers in quick succession. One made electret elements, and the other made electrolytic capacitors. Based on what I saw and was told on these separate field trips, I decided that it would be worth experimenting in modifying elecrolytic capacitors by changing the amount of compression and damping encountered by the metal can, and listening to the results using the methods that I described previously.
I recall that in this particular case I made up about 10 visually identical units, treated the electrolytic capacitors differently in each one, sealed them up, mixed them around, and labelled them randomly. I left them powered up for about 10 days, and listened while making notes.
Once I had finished noting my subjective impressions, I boxed up all of the units (without my listening notes), and sent them on to another person in charge of listening in our organization (at that time, I think there were 4 or 5 of us who formed a "listening panel". He also listened while writing down his subjective impressions, and once he had finished, sent the units on to the next person, and so on.
When the last person had finished, the units were sent back to our main workroom, we each brought in our listening notes, compared our notes to see what each of us thought of the sound of unit J, 7, *, etc. We then opened up the sealed units to see what was inside them, and figure out what modification was contributing to what sort of sonic change.
On the whole, we picked the completely peeled capacitors as offering the greatest, least ambiguous subjective sonic improvement for the least effort. We also concluded that it was better not to use the commonly supplied metal bands to secure the capacitors (changes in this area yielded measurable differences in distortion levels). Some other techniques were rejected because they resulted in divided opinions among our listening staff, were inaudible, or made the sound worse, while other techniques were deemed sonically worthwhile but likely to be too much of a PITA during production.
Even today, in my current products, some of the electrolytic capacitors have peeled sheaths.
But not all.
Feel free to experiment, gather your own data, and draw your own conclusions.
Likely a lot more productive than arguing.
regards, jonathan carr
plastic covers
Hello , the last reply is one some of us are searching for. Superblack will prevent the plastic to be charged. They say this charge can be given back to the capacitor itself. The same effect has been noticed in cables. Even a small mechanical schock can cause this giving back of charge. I have just finished a new line-amp , when i am used to its sound, i will start tests with removingplastic from cathode capacitors. and adding superblack to resistors and cables. Graphite spray is very easy available, Ed
Hello , the last reply is one some of us are searching for. Superblack will prevent the plastic to be charged. They say this charge can be given back to the capacitor itself. The same effect has been noticed in cables. Even a small mechanical schock can cause this giving back of charge. I have just finished a new line-amp , when i am used to its sound, i will start tests with removingplastic from cathode capacitors. and adding superblack to resistors and cables. Graphite spray is very easy available, Ed
SKINNINGS CAPS
Fellows,
Jonathan's descriptions of these experiments sum it up nicely.
The procedure used precludes prejudices and seems good policy to me.
It has been stated before:the topic isn't a new but that's pretty moot.
Supposing none of us (bar J.C.) have ever seen the printed results,you're free to run you're own tests.
Jonathan may well be in the right spot to report on the testing of
the treatment of passive components with an anti-static neutralizer as once marketed (shyly I admit) by a daughter company of multinatioanal JVC.(Superblack)
As far as I can tell it's a C42 charged product (graphite or similar)
A search on the net yielded pretty much no results.
As Ed Goewie and myself have pointed out:all plastic material surrounding components react to its underlying conductor.
It may have to do with dielectric absorbtion,or what have you.
Fact remains,I'ld like to have it out of my hair and understand what's going on.
Granted, it will be more audible in high amplification devices than low.
Hence it seems logical to me to device a very a high gain device just for that,no measuring tools to my knowledge ever show you this kind of differences?
But as a general rule I always do my testing in high amplification stages and even with a high resolution device such as a Stax electrostatic headphone.
You would be amazed at what you actually can hear!
A simple 2 inch piece of wire can make an awful lot of difference,audibly!!
In conclusion I can only say this:know what you're working with and where to put it.
To give you the ultimate trick :listen to the sound of your PSU by hooking up yr. headphone between B+ and G.
I know it has been said before but does anyone actually try this golden tip?
As far as the clamping collars of electrolytics go:you wouldn't believe it but it matters.That's how I would do the damping anyway,anyone knowing the inner workings of an electrolytic knows that isolating them from vibration can't hurt.
And to add insult to injury:yes,stressing the can with a clamp changes it's behaviour.Even electrically.
Cheers,
Fellows,
Jonathan's descriptions of these experiments sum it up nicely.
The procedure used precludes prejudices and seems good policy to me.
It has been stated before:the topic isn't a new but that's pretty moot.
Supposing none of us (bar J.C.) have ever seen the printed results,you're free to run you're own tests.
Jonathan may well be in the right spot to report on the testing of
the treatment of passive components with an anti-static neutralizer as once marketed (shyly I admit) by a daughter company of multinatioanal JVC.(Superblack)
As far as I can tell it's a C42 charged product (graphite or similar)
A search on the net yielded pretty much no results.
As Ed Goewie and myself have pointed out:all plastic material surrounding components react to its underlying conductor.
It may have to do with dielectric absorbtion,or what have you.
Fact remains,I'ld like to have it out of my hair and understand what's going on.
Granted, it will be more audible in high amplification devices than low.
Hence it seems logical to me to device a very a high gain device just for that,no measuring tools to my knowledge ever show you this kind of differences?
But as a general rule I always do my testing in high amplification stages and even with a high resolution device such as a Stax electrostatic headphone.
You would be amazed at what you actually can hear!
A simple 2 inch piece of wire can make an awful lot of difference,audibly!!
In conclusion I can only say this:know what you're working with and where to put it.
To give you the ultimate trick :listen to the sound of your PSU by hooking up yr. headphone between B+ and G.
I know it has been said before but does anyone actually try this golden tip?
As far as the clamping collars of electrolytics go:you wouldn't believe it but it matters.That's how I would do the damping anyway,anyone knowing the inner workings of an electrolytic knows that isolating them from vibration can't hurt.
And to add insult to injury:yes,stressing the can with a clamp changes it's behaviour.Even electrically.
Cheers,
DIODES
Peter,
If you truly believe your source CD player has the potential of being high-end , I would look at these led's,are they decoupled already?
Is there a way to get rid of them altogether?
To give you some idea about my state of paranoia:I dismiss any led in my gear,then again I dismiss a lot of stuff.
Truth be said:a led to show whether a unit is on won't break it,but using them as voltage references is another.
Cheers,
Peter,
If you truly believe your source CD player has the potential of being high-end , I would look at these led's,are they decoupled already?
Is there a way to get rid of them altogether?
To give you some idea about my state of paranoia:I dismiss any led in my gear,then again I dismiss a lot of stuff.
Truth be said:a led to show whether a unit is on won't break it,but using them as voltage references is another.
Cheers,
Could this be a problem?
The lunatic fringe triumphs over solid engineering once again.... LEDs are great low noise voltage references. I personally find the claim of degradation in sonics due to having an LED in the circuit to be nonsense. Of course some people will believe anything and are free to claim all kinds of things.
H.H.
"my state of paranoia"..... yes I believe that about describes it.
The lunatic fringe triumphs over solid engineering once again.... LEDs are great low noise voltage references. I personally find the claim of degradation in sonics due to having an LED in the circuit to be nonsense. Of course some people will believe anything and are free to claim all kinds of things.
H.H.
"my state of paranoia"..... yes I believe that about describes it.
Re: plastic covers
Preventing the plastic from being charged is as simple as doing nothing at all as there's nothing to cause the plastic to become charged, unless your cat's getting inside your gear and rolling around.
Since it hasn't taken any charge from the capacitor, there's nothing to give back.
Again, they appear to be speaking of dielectric absorption. That only exists in the dielectric that exists between the plates of a capacitor. In cables, the conductors act as the plates and the insulation between them is the dielectric.
However the plastic on the outside of an electrolytic capacitor does not exist between the plates of the capacitor.
Gee, they discovered the principle behind electret microphones. However this has nothing to do with static charges on the plastic.
Now please don't get bent out of shape because I've pointed out some rather gross flaws in their understanding of physics. If you don't wish to discuss physics, then please don't bring physics into the discussion.
se
eduard said:
Preventing the plastic from being charged is as simple as doing nothing at all as there's nothing to cause the plastic to become charged, unless your cat's getting inside your gear and rolling around.
Since it hasn't taken any charge from the capacitor, there's nothing to give back.
Again, they appear to be speaking of dielectric absorption. That only exists in the dielectric that exists between the plates of a capacitor. In cables, the conductors act as the plates and the insulation between them is the dielectric.
However the plastic on the outside of an electrolytic capacitor does not exist between the plates of the capacitor.
Gee, they discovered the principle behind electret microphones. However this has nothing to do with static charges on the plastic.
Now please don't get bent out of shape because I've pointed out some rather gross flaws in their understanding of physics. If you don't wish to discuss physics, then please don't bring physics into the discussion.
se
All,
H.H.
"my state of paranoia"..... yes I believe that about describes it.
Friday night again?Full moon perhaps??
I try first,if no good then I just may dismiss it.
Fact is though Zeners as Led's are sources of noise,if you can avoid those you're better off.
Excuse me for having tried.
Cheers,
H.H.
"my state of paranoia"..... yes I believe that about describes it.
Friday night again?Full moon perhaps??
I try first,if no good then I just may dismiss it.
Fact is though Zeners as Led's are sources of noise,if you can avoid those you're better off.
Excuse me for having tried.
Cheers,
Dielectric absorbtion?
I believe the Triboelectric effect is the explantion and not dielectric absorbtion. You did say you wanted to discuss physics intelligently.....
www.mnwire.com/mnwire/mwcclit/lownoise.pdf
H.H.
I believe the Triboelectric effect is the explantion and not dielectric absorbtion. You did say you wanted to discuss physics intelligently.....
www.mnwire.com/mnwire/mwcclit/lownoise.pdf
H.H.
Guys,
Intelligently?Yes please...
Nothing wrong with some empirical no nonsense experiments in the mean time??
Often I notice science to be behind,it wonn't be first time I see an explanation "after the event".
As must as I'd like feel of the comfort of a scientific explanation behind any experiment I don't need it to convince me of what I hear.
And yes you can call that "subjective".
Rgds,
Intelligently?Yes please...
Nothing wrong with some empirical no nonsense experiments in the mean time??
Often I notice science to be behind,it wonn't be first time I see an explanation "after the event".
As must as I'd like feel of the comfort of a scientific explanation behind any experiment I don't need it to convince me of what I hear.
And yes you can call that "subjective".
Rgds,
Re: Dielectric absorbtion?
Ok, let's examine triboelectric effect. Er, intelligently of course.
The triboelectric effect in cables is caused by the conductor materials moving past the insulating materials when the cable is moved or otherwise flexed causing points of contact to be made and subsequently separated (it's actually the separation of previously made chemical bonds that results in triboelectric charging, not simply friction).
Because the plastics used for the insulating materials in cables are typically at the negative end of the triboelectric series relative to conductors such as copper or silver, separation between the two will tend to have the insulating materials stripping electrons from the conductors, charging the plastic negative.
Unlike insulators where charge carriers (i.e. electrons) are immobile which is what makes them insulators in the first place, the charge carriers in conductors can move freely throughout the material.
So plucking some electrons from one point in a conductor will cause that point to become positive (i.e. an abundance of protons) causing other electrons in the material to be attracted to that point to balance out the charge.
And when electrons move we get current and when we get current flowing through a resistance we get a voltage drop which appears as noise at the input of the amplifying device.
Now let's consider an aluminum can electrolytic capacitor with a heatshrunk plastic cover.
For there to be any triboelectric effects to be occuring between the aluminum can and the plastic cover, the two must first be moving past each other or otherwise contacting and subsequently separating.
The plastic covers on the electrolytic capacitors I've used have been in rather intimate contact with the aluminum can. If they weren't, the covers would easily spin about the can and next thing you know you've got capacitors blowing up on you because you inserted them with the wrong polarity.
But let's for a moment assume that there is significant movement between the two. This would result in a charge differential between the two, but only in the space between the can and the plastic.
The only way for this to have any consequence to any circuit that the capacitor is used in is if the can were electrically tied to one of the plates of the capacitor. While this is indeed the case for some capacitors (the CDE Flat Pack caps come to mind), the vast majority of aluminum can electrolytics have no such electrical connection.
But let's further assume that we do have some funky aluminum electrolytic capacitor which has its plastic cover sliding all around it for some bizzare reason and that this capacitor further has one of its plates tied to the aluminum can.
Now we finally arrive at a situation however bizarre where there are implications for the circuit that the capacitor is being used in.
So the next question is, would painting some conductive carbon compound on the plastic cover remedy this situation?
No.
Static charges with regard to insulating materials are a sufrace effect. This is because as mentioned previously, charge carriers in insulating materials are not mobile. If they were, all you'd need to do is simply touch your LPs to a convenient ground point and voila, no more static.
The consequence of this is that any static charge built up on the plastic as a consequence of rubbing against the aluminum can will exist only on its inside surface. Painting something on its outside surface will have no effect.
se
HarryHaller said:
Ok, let's examine triboelectric effect. Er, intelligently of course.
The triboelectric effect in cables is caused by the conductor materials moving past the insulating materials when the cable is moved or otherwise flexed causing points of contact to be made and subsequently separated (it's actually the separation of previously made chemical bonds that results in triboelectric charging, not simply friction).
Because the plastics used for the insulating materials in cables are typically at the negative end of the triboelectric series relative to conductors such as copper or silver, separation between the two will tend to have the insulating materials stripping electrons from the conductors, charging the plastic negative.
Unlike insulators where charge carriers (i.e. electrons) are immobile which is what makes them insulators in the first place, the charge carriers in conductors can move freely throughout the material.
So plucking some electrons from one point in a conductor will cause that point to become positive (i.e. an abundance of protons) causing other electrons in the material to be attracted to that point to balance out the charge.
And when electrons move we get current and when we get current flowing through a resistance we get a voltage drop which appears as noise at the input of the amplifying device.
Now let's consider an aluminum can electrolytic capacitor with a heatshrunk plastic cover.
For there to be any triboelectric effects to be occuring between the aluminum can and the plastic cover, the two must first be moving past each other or otherwise contacting and subsequently separating.
The plastic covers on the electrolytic capacitors I've used have been in rather intimate contact with the aluminum can. If they weren't, the covers would easily spin about the can and next thing you know you've got capacitors blowing up on you because you inserted them with the wrong polarity.
But let's for a moment assume that there is significant movement between the two. This would result in a charge differential between the two, but only in the space between the can and the plastic.
The only way for this to have any consequence to any circuit that the capacitor is used in is if the can were electrically tied to one of the plates of the capacitor. While this is indeed the case for some capacitors (the CDE Flat Pack caps come to mind), the vast majority of aluminum can electrolytics have no such electrical connection.
But let's further assume that we do have some funky aluminum electrolytic capacitor which has its plastic cover sliding all around it for some bizzare reason and that this capacitor further has one of its plates tied to the aluminum can.
Now we finally arrive at a situation however bizarre where there are implications for the circuit that the capacitor is being used in.
So the next question is, would painting some conductive carbon compound on the plastic cover remedy this situation?
No.
Static charges with regard to insulating materials are a sufrace effect. This is because as mentioned previously, charge carriers in insulating materials are not mobile. If they were, all you'd need to do is simply touch your LPs to a convenient ground point and voila, no more static.
The consequence of this is that any static charge built up on the plastic as a consequence of rubbing against the aluminum can will exist only on its inside surface. Painting something on its outside surface will have no effect.
se
Sin Bin bound
"the vast majority of aluminum can electrolytics have no such electrical connection" But the eletrolyte is in contact with the aluminum case.
"The plastic covers on the electrolytic capacitors I've used have been in rather intimate contact with the aluminum can" How intimate, as intimate as an insulator and conductor in a cable say...?
"the two must first be moving past each other or otherwise contacting and subsequently separating" Say from vibration for example?....
"The consequence of this is that any static charge built up on the plastic as a consequence of rubbing against the aluminum can will exist only on its inside surface." I wonder how good an insulator it is?......
H.H.
P.S. where does dielectric absorbtion enter into all of this?
"the vast majority of aluminum can electrolytics have no such electrical connection" But the eletrolyte is in contact with the aluminum case.
"The plastic covers on the electrolytic capacitors I've used have been in rather intimate contact with the aluminum can" How intimate, as intimate as an insulator and conductor in a cable say...?
"the two must first be moving past each other or otherwise contacting and subsequently separating" Say from vibration for example?....
"The consequence of this is that any static charge built up on the plastic as a consequence of rubbing against the aluminum can will exist only on its inside surface." I wonder how good an insulator it is?......
H.H.
P.S. where does dielectric absorbtion enter into all of this?
Re: Sin Bin bound
So? The electrolyte isn't electronically conductive. It "conducts" by way of ionic migration. If it were electronically conductive, it'd short out the whole cap. So just because it's in contact with the aluminum case doesn't mean that it will conduct electrons from the plates of the capacitor.
At least. However an aluminum can electrolytic is hardly as flexible as a cable.
I can't think of any vibration they'd ever be subjected to inside any piece of audio gear where they wouldn't be moving together.
Well, let's see. The heatshrink used on caps is usually made of PVC which has a volume resistivity of 5,400,000,000,000,000 ohms per centimeter. That's 5.4 quadrillion ohms. Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty good insulator.
Only in that some of the explanations that have been offered up so far seem to be decribing dielectric absorption.
se
HarryHaller said:
So? The electrolyte isn't electronically conductive. It "conducts" by way of ionic migration. If it were electronically conductive, it'd short out the whole cap. So just because it's in contact with the aluminum case doesn't mean that it will conduct electrons from the plates of the capacitor.
At least. However an aluminum can electrolytic is hardly as flexible as a cable.
I can't think of any vibration they'd ever be subjected to inside any piece of audio gear where they wouldn't be moving together.
Well, let's see. The heatshrink used on caps is usually made of PVC which has a volume resistivity of 5,400,000,000,000,000 ohms per centimeter. That's 5.4 quadrillion ohms. Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty good insulator.
Only in that some of the explanations that have been offered up so far seem to be decribing dielectric absorption.
se
physics for poets
"So? The electrolyte isn't electronically conductive."
What the heck ........
http://www.semicom.co.uk/manufacturer/sanyo/sanyo_oscon/sanyo_oscon_main.html
http://www.faradnet.com/deeley/book_toc.htm
"I can't think of any vibration they'd ever be subjected to inside any piece of audio gear where they wouldn't be moving together."
I can including vibration from the signal though the capacitor
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~rfield/PHY2049/2049_notes.html
"Only in that some of the explanations that have been offered up so far seem to be decribing dielectric absorption."
Hmmmmm..... not to me.
dielectric absorption: Audiophile buzzword alert! For actual explanation of what it actually means:
http://www.national.com/rap/Application/0,1570,28,00.html
http://www.capacitors.com/pickcap/pickcap.htm
Why don't you learn a little about basic capacitor theory before launching into another one of your manifestos.
H.H.
"So? The electrolyte isn't electronically conductive."
What the heck ........
http://www.semicom.co.uk/manufacturer/sanyo/sanyo_oscon/sanyo_oscon_main.html
http://www.faradnet.com/deeley/book_toc.htm
"I can't think of any vibration they'd ever be subjected to inside any piece of audio gear where they wouldn't be moving together."
I can including vibration from the signal though the capacitor
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~rfield/PHY2049/2049_notes.html
"Only in that some of the explanations that have been offered up so far seem to be decribing dielectric absorption."
Hmmmmm..... not to me.
dielectric absorption: Audiophile buzzword alert! For actual explanation of what it actually means:
http://www.national.com/rap/Application/0,1570,28,00.html
http://www.capacitors.com/pickcap/pickcap.htm
Why don't you learn a little about basic capacitor theory before launching into another one of your manifestos.
H.H.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.