No, I'm not able to see that. Not in this prehistoric software bundle.
Maybe there is free program which could import impedance measurement
and calculate uF vs.freq.
not really - some engineers read Psychoacoustics too - there are real limits to human hearing - some effects - like supposing you could drive the DA modeling components in better film caps independently wouldn't give SPL above the human hearing threshold in quiet - after minutes of accommodation in a anechoic chamber
then add real room's noise floor, recording media, study the actual conditions and common misrepersentations of the "hearing below the noise floor"...
there are numbers in audio that I would be willing to bet paper Benjamin Franklins all day long against a Golden Ear telling in a properly controlled listening test with good blinding protocol and statistical threshold
seems like few Audio magazines ever repeated the Carver Stereophile challenge - any idea why that?
then add real room's noise floor, recording media, study the actual conditions and common misrepersentations of the "hearing below the noise floor"...
there are numbers in audio that I would be willing to bet paper Benjamin Franklins all day long against a Golden Ear telling in a properly controlled listening test with good blinding protocol and statistical threshold
seems like few Audio magazines ever repeated the Carver Stereophile challenge - any idea why that?
Last edited:
Yep , that kind of info is gold in the audio world, you first .....
Already have. Many times. Your turn.
Are we back at this cap has -135 db thirds and that one has -145dB thirds so that must be the difference, while relying only on unobserved anecdotal feedback.
We have signal chains in the lab with dozens of SMT R's and C's in the path and still get >-130dB numbers on harmonics. Just how can that be?
If I remember correctly, Hiraga writted more than 20 years ago, hifi systems, devices need to be measured with power tone burst (don't know if the traduction is correct) at far more than 5 harmonics... So ears stay good instrument but the method need to stay always the same : test bench and conditions. Who can do that but professionals (ad hoc measure instrument + system + room for ears correlation with measure, and AB.... I surmise it can cost such time & money than nobody will try.
reading carrefully the T Gees inputs can help a little and better than nothing...
reading carrefully the T Gees inputs can help a little and better than nothing...
you mean like 30 log ratio frequency multitones, AP's Fast Test signal, Blecher Noise Fill? - turns out they are in general less sensitive since each component has to be so much lower than the channel peak capability to avoid rare/random peaks clipping
Scott, others have posted pretty generic PC soundcards doing basically "perfect" (within the card's noise, distortion and spur floor seen with single tone sweeps) in analog loop back with these "complex" test signals
there are conditions that can require multitone excitation to reveal - but often just 2 tone IMD can be structured to reveal them at much higher resolution than more complex signals
2 tone IMD test can be chosen to explore thermal modulation too
the "complex" or "wideband" arguments used to be good for moving the goalpost - but today just actually describe the signal, distortion criteria mathematically, and free SW and PC HD chipsets lets anyone test out these hypotheticals
Last edited:
Has anyone here given thought to the almost total absence of cap manufacturer's DETAILED explanations of why their products are better than 'Y' competitors in their advertising? Really, think about it!
Perhaps there is a gentlemen's agreement that they will keep their claims consisting mostly of subjective self-descriptions and thus avoid a *issing contest that could easily result from quantitative arguments? It may be they rely on the fairy-dust mindset of extreme audiophiles who endlessy seek audio nirvana.
Perhaps there is a gentlemen's agreement that they will keep their claims consisting mostly of subjective self-descriptions and thus avoid a *issing contest that could easily result from quantitative arguments? It may be they rely on the fairy-dust mindset of extreme audiophiles who endlessy seek audio nirvana.
Scott,
Again it is not microdiodes!
Did you actually read the post? I said "Now when looking at a capacitor for a design the issues are:
Value, Tolerance, Current capacity, ESR, Delta C and there actually are distortion differences between dielectrics. "
Please note the order. Now which of these are issues in your small signal circuits? Value - yes, Tolerance - sometimes, Current capacity - almost never, ESR - sometimes, Delta-C - almost never.
Then I mention that second harmonic doesn't really matter if it is below -30 decibels.
So why do you get better than - 130 decibels on your circuits? (Note I think you should have written < -130 db, but I'll try to read into it what I think you mean.) That would most likely be that they are feedback circuits and the final distortion is primarily determined by the gain circuitry's inherent distortion reduced by the feedback network. So unless you are using carbon composition resistors at full power, you should see those results.
Now there have been some active loudspeakers that do have feedback, but the discussion here is about capacitors used in passive crossovers.
That is why I discounted the possible higher order harmonics contributing much to the why are capacitor's different in this application.
Sorry if I was not clear enough.
ES
OK how about developing some in situ tests for crossover components? Unfortunately the speakers own non-linearities will mask a lot, how about a parallel electrical only path with all the parts in the same sound field, in the speaker?
I did this some years back. A short version was in Elektor (My friend the accelerometer.) The article had some examples of vibration induced capacitor noise vs. frequency. I have no intention of following it up by testing tweak capacitors.
The only ones I am currently using in "audiophile" applications are the Wima Foil/PP Film and when not available then the metalized parts, except for some phono stages I am building using the polystyrene Rel caps. I might run tests comparing those to other common parts. At the same time I am curious to see if distortion reduces as the voltage rating increases as has been observed in not very correct protocol listening tests.
The only ones I am currently using in "audiophile" applications are the Wima Foil/PP Film and when not available then the metalized parts, except for some phono stages I am building using the polystyrene Rel caps. I might run tests comparing those to other common parts. At the same time I am curious to see if distortion reduces as the voltage rating increases as has been observed in not very correct protocol listening tests.
Last edited:
Yep...
The best cap is no cap, unfortunately active speakers have not done away with the cap speaker...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.