CAP TEST
Hi,
Yes,and I put the quotes there for a reason: "proves".
Fine then.
I rephrase: And this then confirms what listeners experience when upgrading to a superior capacitor.
When the measurements of an amplfier or whatever show THD figures do you then have "proof" that it is actually there?
To put it another way:whenever you listen to amplifiers do you hear the distortions these showed on the scope?
I for one can't tell how many percent of distortion I hear just by listening.
What I can easily tell apart though is when I hear a bad amp or a good amp.
Moreover the better one does not necessarily have the better distortion figures.
The only way to prove all this is by doing scientifically controlled A-B listening tests,preferably large scale.
That would prove that we are probably measuring the wrong things with our test gear.
Or,putting it more mildly:that our measurements do not tell the whole story when it comes to reveal perceived audible differences.
Perhaps we should develop a measuring device that mimmicks the human ear/brain interface in a perfect manner.
In the mean time I trust my ears and those of others.
Cheers,
Hi,
Yes,and I put the quotes there for a reason: "proves".
Fine then.
I rephrase: And this then confirms what listeners experience when upgrading to a superior capacitor.
When the measurements of an amplfier or whatever show THD figures do you then have "proof" that it is actually there?
To put it another way:whenever you listen to amplifiers do you hear the distortions these showed on the scope?
I for one can't tell how many percent of distortion I hear just by listening.
What I can easily tell apart though is when I hear a bad amp or a good amp.
Moreover the better one does not necessarily have the better distortion figures.
The only way to prove all this is by doing scientifically controlled A-B listening tests,preferably large scale.
That would prove that we are probably measuring the wrong things with our test gear.
Or,putting it more mildly:that our measurements do not tell the whole story when it comes to reveal perceived audible differences.
Perhaps we should develop a measuring device that mimmicks the human ear/brain interface in a perfect manner.
In the mean time I trust my ears and those of others.
Cheers,
Re: CAP TEST
But Frank, you just said that his test does explain the perceived results! From your point of view (and many other audiophiles), the "science" was more than adequate, and the measuring equipment was more than adequate. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! If the gear proves your point, it's ok. If it doesn't, it's bad. Huh?????
Isn't it funny that I am told repeatedly "I don't listen to my scope". "My scope can't hear music." etc. And then they direct me to the steve bench website as proof of their convictions. The site which contains nothing but pretty pictures of.... SCOPES!!
fdegrove said:
But Frank, you just said that his test does explain the perceived results! From your point of view (and many other audiophiles), the "science" was more than adequate, and the measuring equipment was more than adequate. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS! If the gear proves your point, it's ok. If it doesn't, it's bad. Huh?????
Isn't it funny that I am told repeatedly "I don't listen to my scope". "My scope can't hear music." etc. And then they direct me to the steve bench website as proof of their convictions. The site which contains nothing but pretty pictures of.... SCOPES!!
CAP TEST
Hi Joel,
I don't think I imply that.I was speaking about measurements in general.
If you reread you'll see "amplifier","audio gear" etc.
Not capacitors.
Steve's test show it the other way around,he shows in a visible way with the shown shots of the display that the different behaviour of various caps at various frequencies are actualy there and not imaginary.
You can extrapolate whatever suits you from it if you like but it confirmed to me at least what I knew to be correct all along.
You do know how to read a scope I presume?
Cheers,
Hi Joel,
I don't think I imply that.I was speaking about measurements in general.
If you reread you'll see "amplifier","audio gear" etc.
Not capacitors.
Steve's test show it the other way around,he shows in a visible way with the shown shots of the display that the different behaviour of various caps at various frequencies are actualy there and not imaginary.
You can extrapolate whatever suits you from it if you like but it confirmed to me at least what I knew to be correct all along.
You do know how to read a scope I presume?
Cheers,
Frank,
There are two different issues here:
1) The correlation between dielectreic absorbtion and listening
experiences
2) Steve Benchs test
For 1) there seems to possibly be a correlation since most people
who have opinion on capacitors tend to agree on how they
sound and their ranking correlates to the DA properties. This
is still wanting as a proof, since we have no controlled listening
experiments, but that is another issue, so let's keep that out
for now.
Now, for 2) there is the question I posed previously: what does
SB really show us that we didn't know before? Clearly he does
not tell us anything about how the capacitors sound, since he
has only measured them. What he measured is the DA of the
various capacitors and found this to vary with the type of
dielectricum used. Not surprisingly, his results agreed by what
one can read about various dielectrica in textbooks. As far as I
can see, then, his article doesn't add anything new at all,
except some fancy scope pictures to go along with DA results.
What "capacitor listeners" want to prove, or at least claim, is
the correlation 1), but this cannot be proven any further unless
large-scale listening tests are conducted. Steve Bench adds
nothing to this.
There are two different issues here:
1) The correlation between dielectreic absorbtion and listening
experiences
2) Steve Benchs test
For 1) there seems to possibly be a correlation since most people
who have opinion on capacitors tend to agree on how they
sound and their ranking correlates to the DA properties. This
is still wanting as a proof, since we have no controlled listening
experiments, but that is another issue, so let's keep that out
for now.
Now, for 2) there is the question I posed previously: what does
SB really show us that we didn't know before? Clearly he does
not tell us anything about how the capacitors sound, since he
has only measured them. What he measured is the DA of the
various capacitors and found this to vary with the type of
dielectricum used. Not surprisingly, his results agreed by what
one can read about various dielectrica in textbooks. As far as I
can see, then, his article doesn't add anything new at all,
except some fancy scope pictures to go along with DA results.
What "capacitor listeners" want to prove, or at least claim, is
the correlation 1), but this cannot be proven any further unless
large-scale listening tests are conducted. Steve Bench adds
nothing to this.
CAP TEST SEQUEL #3077.
Hi,
Christer,
Re:
#1)Do you really believe there is no factual evidence that clearly proves that the worst dielectrical material will absorb the most of an AC signal?
It is actually put to service in filter applications.
#2)You should see Steve's test in the context of his contribution to Audio Amateur magazine when he was asked to visibly show how different caps behave at various frequencie to the audience of that magazine.
In that respect his work is to be considered as a "let's put it all under one roof thing" so the audiance had a synopsis of the issue.Period.
Is that debate still going on to this day?
Or does it just live on this forum?
There is a lot more to the making of a good/excellent cap for audio application than just DA alone.
Now,with your technical knowledge at hand you must know that a cap represents the electrical equivalent of an LCR filter.
Needles to say than that if you can reduce L and R and keep DA as low as possible you will then have a cap that behaves in a more ideal (i.e. linear) way at audio frequencies and if you're lucky
well beyond it.
Why this then would or would not be audible I leave that in the middle.
Just know that a component will impose less of a challenge when it is behaving as linearly as you can get.
Has anyone ever considered thinking about why electrolytic capacitors are much better suited at filtering out low frequency ripple?
And you wonder why you guys get hum on the PSU when you use polyprops only?Heck,they're just too good at letting the low frequency ripple pass.
Phew....
Hi,
Christer,
Re:
#1)Do you really believe there is no factual evidence that clearly proves that the worst dielectrical material will absorb the most of an AC signal?
It is actually put to service in filter applications.
#2)You should see Steve's test in the context of his contribution to Audio Amateur magazine when he was asked to visibly show how different caps behave at various frequencie to the audience of that magazine.
In that respect his work is to be considered as a "let's put it all under one roof thing" so the audiance had a synopsis of the issue.Period.
Is that debate still going on to this day?
Or does it just live on this forum?
There is a lot more to the making of a good/excellent cap for audio application than just DA alone.
Now,with your technical knowledge at hand you must know that a cap represents the electrical equivalent of an LCR filter.
Needles to say than that if you can reduce L and R and keep DA as low as possible you will then have a cap that behaves in a more ideal (i.e. linear) way at audio frequencies and if you're lucky
well beyond it.
Why this then would or would not be audible I leave that in the middle.
Just know that a component will impose less of a challenge when it is behaving as linearly as you can get.
Has anyone ever considered thinking about why electrolytic capacitors are much better suited at filtering out low frequency ripple?
And you wonder why you guys get hum on the PSU when you use polyprops only?Heck,they're just too good at letting the low frequency ripple pass.
Phew....
Re: CAP TEST SEQUEL #3077.
I don't know what this has to do with my point 1) and I thought
we were discussing DA only.
#2)You should see Steve's test in the context of his contribution to Audio Amateur magazine when he was asked to visibly show how different caps behave at various frequencie to the audience of that magazine.
In that respect his work is to be considered as a "let's put it all under one roof thing" so the audiance had a synopsis of the issue.Period.
Fair enough, it can be a bit confusing, though, if used out of
context with no further explanation, as it often is. If DA is the
issue, then it is an unecessary complication to drag in his
article, although it can serve to illustrate the phenomenon.
Regarding the rest of what you wrote, yes, of course there
is resistance and inductance too, but I thought that was not
the issue being discussed. I suspect these would not be of a
magnitude to show up in SBs test, at least not for 0.1uF
capacitors of whatever type.
Once again, please note that I am not arguing against the
claim of capacitors sounding different, just discussing the
arguments used in the debate.
fdegrove said:
I don't know what this has to do with my point 1) and I thought
we were discussing DA only.
#2)You should see Steve's test in the context of his contribution to Audio Amateur magazine when he was asked to visibly show how different caps behave at various frequencie to the audience of that magazine.
In that respect his work is to be considered as a "let's put it all under one roof thing" so the audiance had a synopsis of the issue.Period.
Fair enough, it can be a bit confusing, though, if used out of
context with no further explanation, as it often is. If DA is the
issue, then it is an unecessary complication to drag in his
article, although it can serve to illustrate the phenomenon.
Regarding the rest of what you wrote, yes, of course there
is resistance and inductance too, but I thought that was not
the issue being discussed. I suspect these would not be of a
magnitude to show up in SBs test, at least not for 0.1uF
capacitors of whatever type.
Once again, please note that I am not arguing against the
claim of capacitors sounding different, just discussing the
arguments used in the debate.
Frank,
I didn't realize you meant DA, since your question would be
pointless then - I thought we were in agreement that
dielectrica have different DA properties.
Anyway, I think the issue is more or less cleared up now. The
test by SB illustrates the different DA properties, which were
already known. This is nice, but is not a necessary part of
the "proof" that capacitor sonics is correlated to DA.
What could be interesting, maybe, is theoretical analyses
of the DA properties of various dielectrica since this could
be used to calculate the effect for smaller signals where a
scope picture is not sufficiently revealing. Come to think of it,
one could also repeat SBs test, using as soundcard to capture
the signals, which should give much better precision than a
scope. Anyone volunteering?
I didn't realize you meant DA, since your question would be
pointless then - I thought we were in agreement that
dielectrica have different DA properties.
Anyway, I think the issue is more or less cleared up now. The
test by SB illustrates the different DA properties, which were
already known. This is nice, but is not a necessary part of
the "proof" that capacitor sonics is correlated to DA.
What could be interesting, maybe, is theoretical analyses
of the DA properties of various dielectrica since this could
be used to calculate the effect for smaller signals where a
scope picture is not sufficiently revealing. Come to think of it,
one could also repeat SBs test, using as soundcard to capture
the signals, which should give much better precision than a
scope. Anyone volunteering?
Christer, Fdegrove, Joel,
So far a valid point has been brought out. What schematic and what was the measuring criteria. One touched on it specifying the X input, but did not realize that Steve also used the Y input (or am I mistaken? Sorry).
The other thing is I believe that the capacitors were used by themselves. How do I know? The math. 600 hertz across 0.1 µF yields about 2500 ohms impedance. 70/2500 is about 26 mA. 70 volts is not atypical of what a cap sees. He adds a 100 ohm capacitor (the last paragraph) in parallel with the capacitor for current control. So the "schematic" can be drawn easily.
CCCC
RRRR
I guess Steve assumes the readers will already know this and can figure out certain things for themselves.
The input to the cap is put on the X input of the scope, and the output of the cap is put on the Y input of the scope. This makes what is known as a Lissajous pattern. A very good, widely used, and valid test to see, visualize, detect any nonlinearities between input and output signals. A straight line perfectly across (diagonal) means output equals input exactly. Any deviation, including tilt of line from exact diagonal indicates nonlinearity. If all caps were the same, they would all have the same pattern.
If one looks closely, some straight lines do deviate from exact diagonal. Then there are very small gaps in the center of the line indicatiing some harmonic distortion, while some caps show obvious gross distortions.
At the outset Steve mentions EM. EM can and does cause interference with the original signal within capacitors by the very nature of how they are made. The foils are rolled up on top of itself. So there will be EM interference of the signal with itself... or inductance. Together with capacitance the two make a complex contour filter. Tubes are by their nature very sensitive at their inputs (a few trillion ohms can do that to a device). So they will "detect" as it were the contour of this internal LC circuit within capacitors of different makes.
Again, something I think Steve assumes the readers to know.
Purely scientific. Purely factual. Purely repeatable. Purely mathematically and measurably verifiable. Sublte? Inaudible to most? Maybe with some types of low to mid-mu tubes. But many here just love that good ole 12AX7, which can probably pick up church bells ringing a half mile away by their very inherent microphonics nature! And forget about the 7199, whose pentode had an even higher amplification ability than that.
Oh and Joel... let it go, man!
Gabe
So far a valid point has been brought out. What schematic and what was the measuring criteria. One touched on it specifying the X input, but did not realize that Steve also used the Y input (or am I mistaken? Sorry).
The other thing is I believe that the capacitors were used by themselves. How do I know? The math. 600 hertz across 0.1 µF yields about 2500 ohms impedance. 70/2500 is about 26 mA. 70 volts is not atypical of what a cap sees. He adds a 100 ohm capacitor (the last paragraph) in parallel with the capacitor for current control. So the "schematic" can be drawn easily.
CCCC
RRRR
I guess Steve assumes the readers will already know this and can figure out certain things for themselves.
The input to the cap is put on the X input of the scope, and the output of the cap is put on the Y input of the scope. This makes what is known as a Lissajous pattern. A very good, widely used, and valid test to see, visualize, detect any nonlinearities between input and output signals. A straight line perfectly across (diagonal) means output equals input exactly. Any deviation, including tilt of line from exact diagonal indicates nonlinearity. If all caps were the same, they would all have the same pattern.
If one looks closely, some straight lines do deviate from exact diagonal. Then there are very small gaps in the center of the line indicatiing some harmonic distortion, while some caps show obvious gross distortions.
At the outset Steve mentions EM. EM can and does cause interference with the original signal within capacitors by the very nature of how they are made. The foils are rolled up on top of itself. So there will be EM interference of the signal with itself... or inductance. Together with capacitance the two make a complex contour filter. Tubes are by their nature very sensitive at their inputs (a few trillion ohms can do that to a device). So they will "detect" as it were the contour of this internal LC circuit within capacitors of different makes.
Again, something I think Steve assumes the readers to know.
Purely scientific. Purely factual. Purely repeatable. Purely mathematically and measurably verifiable. Sublte? Inaudible to most? Maybe with some types of low to mid-mu tubes. But many here just love that good ole 12AX7, which can probably pick up church bells ringing a half mile away by their very inherent microphonics nature! And forget about the 7199, whose pentode had an even higher amplification ability than that.
Oh and Joel... let it go, man!
Gabe
WE ALL GET ALONG JUST FINE.
Hi Christer,
Yes.
No???
These exist.
You could.
But I don't consider soundcards as measuring instruments,let alone "High Fidelity.
Granted,some are pretty good.
No,too many variables involved.
When I already hear differences in first,second generation digital copies I can't help but wonder how "scientific" that would be.
We discussed already on this forum audible differences in CD-R media and so on.
I hear the most unbelievable differences between MS Mediaplayer playing an audiotrack and Plextools (Plextor) playing the same track.
All that with a simple set of PC speakers and a Sounblaster card.
Makes me wonder.
Cheers,
Hi Christer,
Yes.
No???
These exist.
You could.
But I don't consider soundcards as measuring instruments,let alone "High Fidelity.
Granted,some are pretty good.
No,too many variables involved.
When I already hear differences in first,second generation digital copies I can't help but wonder how "scientific" that would be.
We discussed already on this forum audible differences in CD-R media and so on.
I hear the most unbelievable differences between MS Mediaplayer playing an audiotrack and Plextools (Plextor) playing the same track.
All that with a simple set of PC speakers and a Sounblaster card.
Makes me wonder.
Cheers,
Gabevee,
Just a few points. A capacitor is a two-pole and has no input
or output. What SB measures is the voltage over the cap and
the current through it. The 100 Ohm resistor is most certainly
not in parallel but in series with the cap, since he uses it to
measure the current through the cap (ie. by measuring the
voltage over the resistor). Then, the current (ie. the voltage
representing the current) is not used directly, but is integrated
using an RC filter to represent the charge in the cap. Then the
scope is used in XY mode to plot the charge vs. the voltage (or
maybe it was the other way around).
Just a few points. A capacitor is a two-pole and has no input
or output. What SB measures is the voltage over the cap and
the current through it. The 100 Ohm resistor is most certainly
not in parallel but in series with the cap, since he uses it to
measure the current through the cap (ie. by measuring the
voltage over the resistor). Then, the current (ie. the voltage
representing the current) is not used directly, but is integrated
using an RC filter to represent the charge in the cap. Then the
scope is used in XY mode to plot the charge vs. the voltage (or
maybe it was the other way around).
Frank,
A soundcard can be better than an oscilloscope sometimes. Even
if an anlouge scope has very high resolution, we are limited by
how subtle details our eyes can see in the trace. With a
soundcard we can have 16-bit resolution within the audio band
and get data which can be manipulated to get the info our
eyes cannot see on a scope.
A soundcard can be better than an oscilloscope sometimes. Even
if an anlouge scope has very high resolution, we are limited by
how subtle details our eyes can see in the trace. With a
soundcard we can have 16-bit resolution within the audio band
and get data which can be manipulated to get the info our
eyes cannot see on a scope.
NOT WANTING TO "SOUND" ABRASIVE.
Hi Christer,
Could be,but allow me to doubt it.
I can't help but notice that digital reproduction of musical content is still a very much evolving issue.
When it comes to measuring I'd rather stick with what I'm familiar with.
Go ahead with it if you like,I'm obviously biased.
Ciao,
Hi Christer,
Could be,but allow me to doubt it.
I can't help but notice that digital reproduction of musical content is still a very much evolving issue.
When it comes to measuring I'd rather stick with what I'm familiar with.
Go ahead with it if you like,I'm obviously biased.
Ciao,
Christer,
Whoops! It has been awhile (about 2.5 years) since I actually read the article.
I just skimmed over it for this reply. Ole memory ain't what it used to be!
As for input and output... one could argue that one. The source of the signal can be said to be the input, while the other side... referenced to a common... the output.
Thanks for the correction.
Gabe
Whoops! It has been awhile (about 2.5 years) since I actually read the article.
I just skimmed over it for this reply. Ole memory ain't what it used to be!
As for input and output... one could argue that one. The source of the signal can be said to be the input, while the other side... referenced to a common... the output.
Thanks for the correction.
Gabe
INCIDENTALLY
Hi,
This afternoon I incidentally came across another thread on capacitors here:
THE BLACK ART OF CAPACITORISM
Scroll down a bit and you will find a post from Halcyon point to the work of Cyril Bateman.
Too bad to need to buy it or get the backissues from Electronics World.
I recall reading some of these and this is serious stuff.
Just thought I'd let you know.
Cheers,
Hi,
This afternoon I incidentally came across another thread on capacitors here:
THE BLACK ART OF CAPACITORISM
Scroll down a bit and you will find a post from Halcyon point to the work of Cyril Bateman.
Too bad to need to buy it or get the backissues from Electronics World.
I recall reading some of these and this is serious stuff.
Just thought I'd let you know.
Cheers,
Gabevee said:Oh and Joel... let it go, man!
Gabe, why are you picking on me?
You can see there are others who don't agree.Anyway, I think it's perfectly valid to question the science behind this. And (trying desperately to be impartial), I have to say I don't think anyone has answered the fundemental question I asked, which again is: is this relevant? Merely saying "yes", is not an answer either. Why? Is the deviation from linear of such a value as to be unavoidably audible (by objective standards). Because frankly, if it keeps coming down to 'some ears are just better than others' I don't buy it.
Hey Joel,
That is what science is all about... questioning. You go boy!
But... there are those with more acute hearing than others. Another scientific fact. I envy those with higher than 17kHz hearing (some can hear up to 23 kHz) and sensitive enough hearing they can hear the conversation of the couple in the next house... 200 feet away! (My wife).
Well... at this point all the resources have been exhausted, so I bid a fair adeu to this subject.
Later!
Gabe
That is what science is all about... questioning. You go boy!
But... there are those with more acute hearing than others. Another scientific fact. I envy those with higher than 17kHz hearing (some can hear up to 23 kHz) and sensitive enough hearing they can hear the conversation of the couple in the next house... 200 feet away! (My wife).
Well... at this point all the resources have been exhausted, so I bid a fair adeu to this subject.
Later!
Gabe
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.