I always thought the capacitor thing was related to the Monster cable thing
Speaker wire was not an issue until Monster made it a "problem" which they solved easily for you. After making millions on--wire, then other companies found the "problem" of capacitors and solved the "problem" for you! Then power cords became a "problem" along with HDMI cables etc. etc. etc.
I think there is a trend in there somewhere...
For the record, I use Dayton 1% poly caps for several reasons. My garage speakers sit in below freezing to very hot temps and I don't want the caps to dry out so poly gives me longer service life. The 1% has nothing to do with sound quality, I noted they have thicker leads than the 5% which makes building the networks easier (attaching inductor wire etc.)
My question is why blow $1,000 on veil lifting caps when that money can be used to purchase an electronic crossover and additional amplifiers? Rip out the crossover and use two channels of amplification and an electronic crossover will give you many options to improve the sound and change the characteristics to what you like and what works best in the room or application.
In my PA days, my massive mains could run full range from one amp or bi-amped with two and a crossover. I found the bi-amp option to work much better as I could tune it to the room (or outside) and could shift the woofer/mid crossover down from 500Hz to 300Hz for improved sound and dispersion when running at lower power levels. For war level volumes at the end of the night, I'd shift it up to 800Hz to take the power load off the mids--the drunks never noticed.
My mains in my HT setup are Infinity Overture 1 speakers with a built-in amplifier for the 8" woofer. Works very well when tuning the mid-bass to the sub and for baffle step.
Are wazoo caps, wire and power cords only for 2 channel audio with tube amps and turntables? I can understand that a little--no digital sources which is the mantra of some folks--makes sense to not use the evil digital converters in the chain. A classic car would run better with fuel injection but looks "wrong" if it don't have a carb on the manifold.
It just seems bizarre to me for a person to have a home theater receiver, subwoofers, DSP controls, multiple amplifiers operating on a BluRay and ponder spending real money on capacitors--I don't get it!
I guess it could get expensive if you have a Veil Lifter 2000 amp at $5K and you needed another one (or two) and there is no matching Veil Lifter electronic crossover. The balanced lines used in pro sound crossovers won't allow for Snazz Master RCA cords but you can use the Unicorn Blood power cords with them in a pinch. The Spaceman Spiff Uber DAC probably is not compatible either.
I would admit it would look like the village idiot put together an audio system with two tube amps, a record player and an electronic crossover--so it must be a style thing. Granted, it would probably sound better but would look like a 1932 Duesenburg J with fuel injection.
Speaker wire was not an issue until Monster made it a "problem" which they solved easily for you. After making millions on--wire, then other companies found the "problem" of capacitors and solved the "problem" for you! Then power cords became a "problem" along with HDMI cables etc. etc. etc.
I think there is a trend in there somewhere...
For the record, I use Dayton 1% poly caps for several reasons. My garage speakers sit in below freezing to very hot temps and I don't want the caps to dry out so poly gives me longer service life. The 1% has nothing to do with sound quality, I noted they have thicker leads than the 5% which makes building the networks easier (attaching inductor wire etc.)
My question is why blow $1,000 on veil lifting caps when that money can be used to purchase an electronic crossover and additional amplifiers? Rip out the crossover and use two channels of amplification and an electronic crossover will give you many options to improve the sound and change the characteristics to what you like and what works best in the room or application.
In my PA days, my massive mains could run full range from one amp or bi-amped with two and a crossover. I found the bi-amp option to work much better as I could tune it to the room (or outside) and could shift the woofer/mid crossover down from 500Hz to 300Hz for improved sound and dispersion when running at lower power levels. For war level volumes at the end of the night, I'd shift it up to 800Hz to take the power load off the mids--the drunks never noticed.
My mains in my HT setup are Infinity Overture 1 speakers with a built-in amplifier for the 8" woofer. Works very well when tuning the mid-bass to the sub and for baffle step.
Are wazoo caps, wire and power cords only for 2 channel audio with tube amps and turntables? I can understand that a little--no digital sources which is the mantra of some folks--makes sense to not use the evil digital converters in the chain. A classic car would run better with fuel injection but looks "wrong" if it don't have a carb on the manifold.
It just seems bizarre to me for a person to have a home theater receiver, subwoofers, DSP controls, multiple amplifiers operating on a BluRay and ponder spending real money on capacitors--I don't get it!
I guess it could get expensive if you have a Veil Lifter 2000 amp at $5K and you needed another one (or two) and there is no matching Veil Lifter electronic crossover. The balanced lines used in pro sound crossovers won't allow for Snazz Master RCA cords but you can use the Unicorn Blood power cords with them in a pinch. The Spaceman Spiff Uber DAC probably is not compatible either.
I would admit it would look like the village idiot put together an audio system with two tube amps, a record player and an electronic crossover--so it must be a style thing. Granted, it would probably sound better but would look like a 1932 Duesenburg J with fuel injection.
Fuel injection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Maybe not that strange
. After all, we keep re-inventing the wheel over and over again...surely it comes down to any introduced distortion and hysteresis from the cap, and how closely the transfer function it produces matches that of the theoretical?
On the basis that these three easily measurable characteristics are the only ones of real importance, I would propose a real world objective capacitor test.
let the manufacturers put there money where there mouths are, we can invite them all to submit capacitors of a set value (say 5.6uf?) then measure the performance in an objective manner. Sure I can have a word with the lecturers at my university tomorrow about it, maybe we can publish the test results as formal objective results...
thoughts?
On the basis that these three easily measurable characteristics are the only ones of real importance, I would propose a real world objective capacitor test.
let the manufacturers put there money where there mouths are, we can invite them all to submit capacitors of a set value (say 5.6uf?) then measure the performance in an objective manner. Sure I can have a word with the lecturers at my university tomorrow about it, maybe we can publish the test results as formal objective results...
thoughts?
I thought people had tried to do scientific tests with measurable results and they were less than usefull ?
See, i think this is like religion, you get those that 'know' theres a difference, and those that 'know' there is no difference.
Thats when the wars and killings start, all in the name of religion, or cables, or capacitors, or connectors, or . . . . . . . .
If that was a response to my question "Anyone plot cost of the capacitor versus perceived rating , especially within a brand, for Tony Gee's capacitor results?", an actual plot would be more informative.
If you're windering if there's a correlation between rating and cost the answer is yes. Exactly what that correlation is is meaningless because of the changing prices in the marketplace. What hasn't changed is his ratings and the caps, VDC ratings.
Until its charted, one does not know if its meaningless. The relative cost of the capacitors should not change too much, though that would be impacted by currency exchange rates. What I am eluding is this: From looking at ratings, maybe there is possibly too much correlation between price and ratings. And within a line from a manufacturer, the lower cost model is always or almost always rated lower. The ratings are too orderly not to garner questions.
Last edited:
It's not that there is a difference between various types of capacitors that is the issue, there is, some are made for RF applications. some for typical power supply use, some for high energy storage and some more applicable to audio use.
It all depends on the application the capacitor is designed for. One would not use an electrolytic capacitor as an RF bypass capacitor but rather a ceramic disc capacitor would be more applicable. Each application specifies which type of capacitor in its construction is most suitable to make the circuit work effectively.
In audio applications where the frequency range is typically 20 - 20KHz the construction requirements in producing a capacitor are quite basic in design.
A few basic requirements needed in audio grade capacitors as used in crossover networks is high current capacity,high capacity values, good AC working voltage, low ESR and compact size. Close tolerance is preferable too.
Construction is fairly standardized throughout component manufacturers these days, so it is with capacitors though there are some 'money spinners' that use unnecessary exotic materials in their construction.
But as human hearing is limited to the 20 - 20KHz range (and even less so) there is little bandwidth available that can be influenced by any variation in audio capacitor construction.
C.M
It all depends on the application the capacitor is designed for. One would not use an electrolytic capacitor as an RF bypass capacitor but rather a ceramic disc capacitor would be more applicable. Each application specifies which type of capacitor in its construction is most suitable to make the circuit work effectively.
In audio applications where the frequency range is typically 20 - 20KHz the construction requirements in producing a capacitor are quite basic in design.
A few basic requirements needed in audio grade capacitors as used in crossover networks is high current capacity,high capacity values, good AC working voltage, low ESR and compact size. Close tolerance is preferable too.
Construction is fairly standardized throughout component manufacturers these days, so it is with capacitors though there are some 'money spinners' that use unnecessary exotic materials in their construction.
But as human hearing is limited to the 20 - 20KHz range (and even less so) there is little bandwidth available that can be influenced by any variation in audio capacitor construction.
C.M
Last edited:
I have looked for, but only found subjective or highly questionble 'reviews', wouldn't suprise me if all the cap makers declined to send in samples.
I don't doubt that caps can make a difference, but nothing compared to good initial design and application... given certain exceptions of course (in other words I plain don't like electrolytics, i think they clearly sound terrible)
wars over religion I could never understand... but caps, man get my gun!
As an after thought, if one decides to replace the commonplace polypro caps with a more exotic, esoteric type, make sure it is of the exact same value as the one being replaced.
It's value should be measured, otherwise the value difference is more than likely to change the crossover frequency at which the network will interact.
In other words, that crossover network may not sum correctly, causing a noticeable peak or dip in the response. This effect would be more obvious to keen ears at around 3.5 - 4KHz than in the lower midrange, particularly if there is an obvious percentage difference in value between the capacitors.
C.M
It's value should be measured, otherwise the value difference is more than likely to change the crossover frequency at which the network will interact.
In other words, that crossover network may not sum correctly, causing a noticeable peak or dip in the response. This effect would be more obvious to keen ears at around 3.5 - 4KHz than in the lower midrange, particularly if there is an obvious percentage difference in value between the capacitors.
C.M
Last edited:
I have tried Mundorf caps of different types and same value in the same speaker, yes, they do make an improvement. But since the ones I liked were too big for my application at the time, I found that paralleling a small cap like shown on the Humble HiFi site to be a very good solution if you find the right caps. I tried lots of caps that way until I found the right one that sounded just as good at the time. And I also used measurements to confirm the correlation just in case I had to change caps, I could do more quick selection before putting it in a design for listening test.
There is one thing in common with caps and wars -propaganda!
To get to the bottom of the truth of either subject, one ought to
study it scientifically.
What is gained by producing expensive caps (figthing wars)? Money.
People should smarten up and ask the right questions, like what really
makes a difference between an excellent speaker and a mediocre one.
I guarantee, it has nothing to do with caps types.
Don't know that I would agree entirely... I wouldn't be shocked if you could hear the difference between supremes and m-caps in a high end system, but they should be the last path to be upgraded, and I'd be very impressed by anyone who could tell the difference between a supreme and the silver/gold/oil types available.
However, I once believed that a capacitor was a capacitor and that wad it, end of story. I built a crossover with only electrolytics and the sound was, frankly, painful. Similar problems I've identified with most, not all speakers built with electrolytics.
I still believe that a well designed filter network does 100 times more than cap choice. If you're not happy with the sound, you're better of with a different voicing, and that takes the experience of being able to identify correctly what needs to be remedied-even after years, I still feel I've barely skimmed the surface of how far a crossover can be pushed to achieve truly astounding sound, but I'm convinced that design is 99.999% of the solution
