I win listening contests with Rel RT polystyrene caps in the power supply. They are in the Parasound JC-1, 2, 3, Vendetta, and Constellation phono stage. Can't live without them. AND I get lots of awards, partially from using them.
I know this is a stretch but could the microphonic aspect of hi Q ceramic caps possibly affect the supply? Most precision applications are not in noisy environments at least in this sense and the effects may not be obvious there. However any decent PSRR should reject noise from the caps but its a possibility.
An effect would most likely be noticed by the ultra precision crystal oscillator guys. They now have accelerometers in the oscillators to correct for vibration effects so they might be aware, but might not talk about it.
An effect would most likely be noticed by the ultra precision crystal oscillator guys. They now have accelerometers in the oscillators to correct for vibration effects so they might be aware, but might not talk about it.
Lions and tigers and bears, I took your juxaposition of those two articles as sort of an attempt to partially discredit Mr. Elliot by pointing out something he missed in his blind objectivity. Both articles are correct, X7R's are fine as RF bypass and don't work in the signal path, so what?
Mr. Bateman's results have been used by many folks this way, shifting context at will.
I would NOT use X7R caps for power supply bypass, in any audio application. That is one of the reasons my circuits pass independent reviewers scrutiny and they 'like' my circuits.
Apart from your reacting without understanding the purpose of my previous post---you might want to check that reflex, as it's quite abrasive---what, in your world, does a bypass capacitor bypass? DC?
It would also be interesting if a JC amp was introduced as being designed from a newcomer from what is considered a mid-fi company. I wonder what results that would get.
I listened to a podcast where there research shows just how heavily people are biased on value when they discover a work was done by a well-known artist. They pointed out how it is not just a common behavior in the art world.
So please enlighten me, and yes I get abrasive. I can't figure your line of reasoning so why not state your point clearly for this village idiot. Make a technical claim that can be judged on its merit. To me your post had no purpose, within a proper context Mr. Elliot and Mr. Bateman are both correct and are discussing applications on two sides of the audio universe.
So the bypass at audio frequencies has little to do with the X7R's they only help well beyond audio frequencies.
EDIT - I still get a little miffed that Bateman stole my oscillator, but hey in the end who cares.
Last edited:
I don't think so. I think that it is a relatively level playing field, and if a new designer came out with something really different and special, he would be rewarded with a good review. Initially, I was completely unknown to the consumer audio world. It was only the collaboration between Mark Levinson, because of his high build quality, originally learned from Dick Burwin, and my relatively new designs for the time, that gave us a place in the audio community. Neither one of us could have done it alone. It was almost accidental.
For example, IF my designs were used with ceramic coupling caps, then my designs would have failed in the marketplace. If Mark stayed with IC's, he would have never been recognized as a new force in the audio community. He needed fast, linear, class A designs to make something exceptional.
Fortunately, the JC-2 used 2uF Polycarbonate coupling caps, rather than 2uF ceramic caps, (still used by Sony today for the same job), and this was a major step forward.
NOW, I am being told that it is all imaginary, and that I could have used 2uF ceramic caps without any sonic problem. Well, I disagree.
For example, IF my designs were used with ceramic coupling caps, then my designs would have failed in the marketplace. If Mark stayed with IC's, he would have never been recognized as a new force in the audio community. He needed fast, linear, class A designs to make something exceptional.
Fortunately, the JC-2 used 2uF Polycarbonate coupling caps, rather than 2uF ceramic caps, (still used by Sony today for the same job), and this was a major step forward.
NOW, I am being told that it is all imaginary, and that I could have used 2uF ceramic caps without any sonic problem. Well, I disagree.
Audio Quality, requirements for high quality audio equipment.
Philips technical library, 1964.
(Gerard Slot, part of a series of paperback publications, both in Dutch and English)
=>
This book deals with the problem of obtaining the quality of sound reproduction that will give the maximum satisfaction to those listening to it.
The author considers the whole problem objectively.
A chapter spent on discussing the "problem" is followed by one on the technical specifications.
This leads on to one on loudness level and power requirements.
Then follow successively chapters on non-linear distortion, frequency response, pitch deviation, and background noises.
Two chapters are then devoted respectively to stereophony and ambiophony, and finally the author deals with the classification of systems and the use of equipment.
Contents include: The problem - the technical specification - power requirements - non-linear distortion - frequency response - pitch deviations - background noises - stereophony - ambiophony - experimental evidence - classification - the equipment.
You just don't pay attention to what is being said, yes ceramic caps are not optimal in the signal path but as RF bypass they are fine, YMMV. Please don't mix up my comments to prove a point. The differentiation in the two applications was very clearly stated.
I don't think that they are good for bypass, either. That is WHY I use REL. RT polystyrene in all my power supplies. I DIRECT COUPLE so I don't NEED series caps, BUT Sony DOES use ceramics as coupling caps. I know, because I have a Sony tuner here that has them.
OK, everyone, let me once again give MY history of coupling and bypass cap use.
40+ years ago: tantalum, aluminum, ceramic
38 years ago: tantalum, mica, polycarbonate (Levinson era)
35 years ago: tantalum, mica, polycarbonate, polystyrene
32 years ago mica, Rel. polystyrene, polypropylene (servos introduced)
30 years ago to present: Rel. polystyrene, polypropylene, small caps Siemens polystyrene.
That is what I recommend today, if they are purchasable.
40+ years ago: tantalum, aluminum, ceramic
38 years ago: tantalum, mica, polycarbonate (Levinson era)
35 years ago: tantalum, mica, polycarbonate, polystyrene
32 years ago mica, Rel. polystyrene, polypropylene (servos introduced)
30 years ago to present: Rel. polystyrene, polypropylene, small caps Siemens polystyrene.
That is what I recommend today, if they are purchasable.
OK I reviewed your post #24486 you cut and pasted from two sources and added not one word of commentary, I'm not a mind reader, sorry, make a concise point before telling me that I'm abrasive (even though I am).
BTW I learned from the expert, Paul Brokaw is one of the most brilliant engineers that I have ever worked with and he believes a design review is a battle and critics should be as confrontational and abrasive as possible. That is the only way to vet a new design.
The design process as "Fight Club".
Last edited:
Why they should be bad for bypass if on a frequency range that is their job they have as low as needed impedance?
However, they have one very bad disadvantage: metalized film caps can be self-healing, while ceramics are more like "self-shorting". They go absolutely short.
2 years
3 years
3 years
Hmmm... Do you mean, you recommend today "Nothing new to learn in 30 years" approach, John? 🙂
(Just kidding) 😀
Having brilliant minds around the table to dissect and analyze any subject you please is likely to bear fruit.
However, I didn't think abrasiveness adds anything.
Where's Thorsten by the way?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.