Removing Plastic covers from Capacitors

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I find it amazing to see so many opinions about something that no one has tried!!! Why don't you try to remove the plastic and report your findings? Why don't you try to damp some passive and active components and listen for yourself? Wouldn't that make sense? As they say "your mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open".

I have been damping passive and active parts for about 20 years with great success and have removed the plastic from electrolytics with amazing results. If someone tells me that something makes an audible difference, then I usually try it (call me gullible or just plain open minded). I have found that the tiniest vibration on a part is very audible. I am not the only one who hears this.

The only "truth" in audio is what you experience. The direct experience will tell you whether something is real or not. The tests can be repeated by yourself and others and will confirm the worthiness of your initial listening test. In other words, tell a few buddies what you heard and have them try the test. If they hear the same thing and many others state the same thing, then there is got to be something to it.

I certainly believe we can fool ourselves into believing what we want, but a relatively objective listening experience is possible. What I find is that my confidence increases each year that I do these kinds of tests. I trust my direct experiece. It is rarely wrong. The most scientific thing we can do is to use our own senses. The ear is most sensitive instrument for determining sound quality.

Some people are not interested in finding or promoting better sound or in helping people. All they want is to promote what they think is right. The evolution of sound reproduction is like that of a human being. There is no limit to what can be done and experienced. However, to go to the edge of what we now think of as real and step into the unknown (where true breakthroughs occur) requires and open mind and much courage.

Please spend more time listening and less time thinking about what something "should or should not do". Most audible differences can not be measured (wires, solder, passive and active parts, damping, shielding, etc.) The truth can be directly experieced. I wish you the direct experience of your inner being!

Love,
Ric Schultz
 
diyAudio Senior Member
Joined 2002
CAPS

Ric,

I couldn't agree more.
The only way to evolve is to try it out and see.
I'm amazed sometimes at how long it takes for some things to get accepted as an advance in the reproduction of music.
And there's a lot more to hi-fi then just damping of course.:cool:
The "graphite treatment" of any conductors surrounded by plastic materials (pvc etc.) was first experienced 20 years ago.
It was simple and cheap to apply but scientifically probably very hard to understand.
Care to give it a try and report on it here?
;)

Rgds,
 
Disabled Account
Joined 2002
PLASTIC COVERS

hELLO,
i SUGGEST THAT MOST OF THE PERSON WHO DID SENT A REPLY MUST TRY SOME GRAPHITE SPRAY. i DID FIND THE ORIGINAL INFO IN fRENCH.oNE SHOULD REALIZE THAT A LOT OF IDEAS USED IN TODAYS AUDIOPHILE CIRCLES DID COME FROM fRANCE AND jAPAN. hAVE CONFIDENCE, EVER SEEN A jAPANESE diy MAGAZINE. wE DON'T MAKE MONEY BY GIVING IDEAS SO GIVE IT A TRY AND TELL US, eD
 
Cap damping

Hey that Rick guy is not kidding about damping parts.:bigeyes:
 

Attachments

  • damped caps.jpg
    damped caps.jpg
    63.1 KB · Views: 449
Ric Schultz said:
I find it amazing to see so many opinions about something that no one has tried!!! Why don't you try to remove the plastic and report your findings? Why don't you try to damp some passive and active components and listen for yourself? Wouldn't that make sense?

Sure. So why don't people just stick to that instead of offering up physical explanations and asserting their subjective perceptions as objective facts? Wouldn't that make a bit more sense?

If one simply states that they prefer their caps with the covers removed, then there's absolutely nothing to argue as it does not attempt to establish any particular reality beyond that of the individual.

When one goes beyond that point and starts making assertions with regard to objective realities, then it is no longer simply a matter of opinion and the person making the claim(s) now bears the burden of substantiating them and subjecting them to question and challenge.

As they say "your mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open".

Yes. And my mind is open. However I see quite a lot of closedmindedness here. Closed minds which dogmatically adhere to singular possibilities to the total exclusion of other possibilities.

I have been damping passive and active parts for about 20 years with great success and have removed the plastic from electrolytics with amazing results. If someone tells me that something makes an audible difference, then I usually try it (call me gullible or just plain open minded). I have found that the tiniest vibration on a part is very audible. I am not the only one who hears this.

And here is a perfect example.

You assume that ANY perceived difference MUST only be the result of an actual audible stimulus. Such an assumption requires a complete denial of other very real possibilities.

Please explain to me how this is to be considered open minded.

An open mind doesn't make such assumptions but instead allows for all other possibilities until such time as they can be eliminated. In other words, whenever there is more than one possibility, there is ambiguity. And where there is ambiguity, one cannot draw conclusions except by way of dogma.

Please explain to me how dogma is considered open minded.


The only "truth" in audio is what you experience.

Yes. But it must be remembered that this is only a subjective truth and has no inherent implications beyond the particular individual doing the experiencing.

This is in fact how I approach audio. The only thing that matters to ME are my own subjective experiences. I don't care if those experiences are due to physical or psychological influences. Even if they are due solely to psychology, the experience is no less "real" for me.

The difference is that unlike some others, I don't make any attempt to assert MY subjective experiences as anything more than subjective experience and fully recognize the fact that it may well be influenced by things other than what's going on inside my audio system.

What puzzles me is why some people can't be content with the same thing. I don't understand why they feel they have to justify their subjective experiences on objective grounds and why they feel they have to assert their subjective experiences as objective realities.

The direct experience will tell you whether something is real or not.

The direct experience, being a subjective one, will only tell you about the subjective reality. It tells you nothing inherently about the objective reality.

The tests can be repeated by yourself and others and will confirm the worthiness of your initial listening test.

That will only confirm that other individuals are fundamentally the same as yourself. They all have the same ear/brain systems which are as prone to psychological biases same as everyone else.

In other words, tell a few buddies what you heard and have them try the test. If they hear the same thing and many others state the same thing, then there is got to be something to it.

No, there needn't necessarily be something to it beyond humans being fundamentally the same.

I certainly believe we can fool ourselves into believing what we want, but a relatively objective listening experience is possible.

Not until you're able to weed out the psychological element.

What I find is that my confidence increases each year that I do these kinds of tests. I trust my direct experiece. It is rarely wrong. The most scientific thing we can do is to use our own senses.

If you're trying to get at some OBJECTIVE truth, that's perhaps the LEAST scientific thing we can do. It's that kind of "science" that lead people to believe that the earth was flat. "Hey, just look at the horizon! It's FLAT!"

Want to see just how good your senses are at determining objective reality? Try this one:

<center>
<img src="http://www.q-audio.com/images/illusion.jpg">
</center>

Your sense of vision tells you that B is the opposite end of line A. The objective reality is that C is the opposite end of line A.

While our eye captures the image accurately, our subjective sense is based on how the brain INTERPRETS the image.

The ear is most sensitive instrument for determining sound quality.

Well, as for determining SUBJECTIVE quality, it's the ONLY instrument we have. And you neglect the fact that the ear is but one element. Our ears do not hear on their own. Our ears are plugged into our brains, and our ultimate perception is based on how our brain interprets. And that interpretation can be influenced by things other than what's being sent to the brain by the ear.

That's all well and good as far as our subjective perceptions and subsequent enjoyment of audio goes. But when it comes to getting at objective realities, such as actual audibility of various things, that particular nature of our brain makes it a rather ****-poor and unreliable instrument.

Those who claim that our ear/brain system is this marvelously accurate instrument obviously have very little understanding of how the ear/brain system works even at the most basic level.

For starters, the ear actually throws out quite a lot of information right from the start. As an example, consider a sinusoidal waveform. In spite of the fact that its magnitude is continuously changing over time, we have no perception of it. The ear simply averages the magnitude over time and leaves us with a singular, unchanging sensation called amplitude.

To get a general idea, imagine a 1/3 octave equalizer with the dancing LED level indicators for each band. Those dancing LED level indicators are a rough approximation of the information that's actually sent to the brain by the ear. And what we perceive is the result of the brain's interpretation of those dancing LEDs.

So basically what we "hear" is the average energy within each band of a series of bandpass filters spaced roughly 1/3 octave apart.

Some people are not interested in finding or promoting better sound or in helping people. All they want is to promote what they think is right.

I only entered this particular discussion in response to certain objective claims. There is no matter of opinion when it comes to objective claims. Either the claim is valid or it's not. If I see a claim I believe to be invalid, I challenge it. This is the process by which we get to objective truths.

If no one here were interested in getting at any objective truths, then they wouldn't bother making objective claims. Since objective claims have been made, then apparently some have an interest in getting at the objective truth. So I fail to see why questioning those claims should be so problematic.

Unless of course it's not really objective truth one is wanting to get at but rather the establishment of closedminded dogma.

The evolution of sound reproduction is like that of a human being. There is no limit to what can be done and experienced. However, to go to the edge of what we now think of as real and step into the unknown (where true breakthroughs occur) requires and open mind and much courage.

For one who seems to place such importance on an open mind, why is it that part of your mind seems to be completely closed off to certain realities?

Please spend more time listening and less time thinking about what something "should or should not do".

That works for me. Might try it yourself.

Most audible differences can not be measured (wires, solder, passive and active parts, damping, shielding, etc.)

That presupposes an actual audible difference. But until the psychological element which you seem to have such a closed mind about is removed, that can't be established with any reasonable certainty.

Why is it so important to you to establish actual audibility? Is it an ego thing? Why not just become a Zen Hedonist like myself, not give a rat's ***, and just enjoy? Why impose your left brain on your right brain?

se
 
I agree with Ric Schultz. Why don't you just try it and quit arguing about something that you don't have any experience with (unless you enjoy arguing more than building).

I am an audio manufacturer, and this is what I do in situations like this. I build at least two identical sets of amplifiers, and change only the part(s) that you are interested in - could be a new resistor, a new capacitor, same capacitor but with peeled sleeve, or whatever. If you changing something which isn't visibly obvious - like solder - write a description somewhere inside the chassis. Give the two (or more) amplifier sets to someone else, and ask them to mark the amplifiers as arbitrary numbers or letters (so you don't know what is what). Ask a third person to set up a 10-cycle (or more) sequence (of their own liking - the only conditions are that each amplifier set must appear in the sequence at least once, and the sequence should not be in strict alternation). Ask a fourth person to put the amplifiers into your system according to the sequence, while you take listening notes. Use as much time as you like.

At the end of the test, open up the amplifiers and compare their contents with your listening notes.

Theory is important, but so is empirical experience. All action and no thought isn't good, but likewise for all thought (and arguing) and no action.

regards, jonathan carr
 
jcarr said:
I agree with Ric Schultz. Why don't you just try it and quit arguing about something that you don't have any experience with (unless you enjoy arguing more than building).

So why don't people just stick to saying "Just try it" instead of making objective claims with regard to physics and actual objective audibility? "Just try it" does nothing whatsoever to substantiate such objective claims. So why make them in the first place?

I'm sorry, but I find the logic quite bizarre.

A: Hey, I just bought this little black box that made my system sound much better.

B: Yeah? What's it do?

A: (instead of skpping to "Just try it" makes an objective claim)There are little fairies inside the box that clean up the audio signal.

B: There are no such things as fairies.

A: (indignant that his objective claim of fairies was challenged) Just try it!

As if B having tried it found it did make his system sound better to him that this would somehow establish the fact that there were indeed fairies inside the box.

Bottom line, if one has no interest in getting at some objective truth, then don't make any false pretense of it by making objective claims.

If one does have an interest in getting at some objective truth, then don't whine and cry when your objective claims are questioned or otherwise challenged. That's part of the process of getting at the truth.

se
 
Peter Daniel said:

This is the longest post I've ever seen. If you really mean what you say you wouldn't waste your time this way.

Perhaps it is a waste of time. But I think perhaps someday I might be able to understand the illogic, dogma and closedmindness that leaves me puzzled. Though I'm not sure what difference it would make if I did understand it. Just color me curious. :)

se
 
I expect that I am not the only one around here who is a bit tired of the arguments dismissing the ability of the experienced listener to distinguish minor or subtle changes to a system and ascribe these percieved differences to bias.

I've been dealing with audio for more than 25 yrs, and I find no trouble in discerning tiny changes immediately.

I find that after making such changes and listening to music that I know intimately these changes are clearly aparrent.
If I prefer the change I regard the experiment as a benefit, and not all changes are beneficial.

I find this is a case of listening with and believing ones ears, and there is nobody who can convince me that imagination plays a part to experienced ears.

I also find women to be more discerning and descriptive of sonics changes than the typical male.

The bottom line is all about making a system sonically more correct, or at least more enjoyable.

BTW 10 years ago I did try the experiment of removing cap coverings, and I did hear differences, but as I recall I did not regard it as hugely beneficial.

Eric.
 
mrfeedback said:
I expect that I am not the only one around here who is a bit tired of the arguments dismissing the ability of the experienced listener to distinguish minor or subtle changes to a system and ascribe these percieved differences to bias.

Except that I'm NOT dismissing it. NOR am I ascribing perceived differences to bias. Where on earth do you get the idea that I am? Could you please do the the favor of quoting EXACTLY what I've said that has lead you to such an erroneous conclusion?

se
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.