I repeat myself because people here continue to challenge my position that the only thing which really matters is the value of the capacitors used in crossovers and not the construction, manufacturer, or price of them.
If you and others want to move on to different topics that's fine with me. I don't own this thread just because I started it. People are free to discuss whatever they like here.
So thanks for the invitation, but my interest remains with the initial topic and I have no desire to engage in any others at this time.
@Jazz Man:
That is your question, so I told you, please go through the standards and see if your questions are answered.
I cannot answer your question, partly because I have little experience in debates, and partly because a standard is a standard.
So if you intend to debate, some preparation should be there to buttress your position.
Go through them, image clarity may or may not be addressed, I am not going to do that to help you prove or disprove your stand.
That is your question, so I told you, please go through the standards and see if your questions are answered.
I cannot answer your question, partly because I have little experience in debates, and partly because a standard is a standard.
So if you intend to debate, some preparation should be there to buttress your position.
Go through them, image clarity may or may not be addressed, I am not going to do that to help you prove or disprove your stand.
No, you have it backwards. You can't prove a negative.
What someone needs to prove is whether the materials and construction of capacitors is a contributing factor in crossover performance. Then you could say that this material or this construction method has the following affect on performance. That's the way science works. Not the other way around.
Anyone in academia or anywhere else would know this. It's pretty basic logic.
You forgot performance in your list of what other people say, ie non-linearities.
Ok, I can see where you are coming from, but as I've said, I'm not interested in the fallacious demands for "proof".
Ha! Gotcha!
There is no single proof (scientific evidence!) in this thread that capacitors do sound different. Where is it?
In his first posts (#1 and #3), OP @clasicalfan never mentioned the claim “there is no audible difference in capacitors”! He simply gave a very logical and plausible explanation that cap tolerance is to blame. The burden of truth do not falls on him for claims which he didn't make!
- The first notion of claim “there is no audible difference in capacitors” in this thread was in post #4, by @mountainman bob, which is proponent of the claim that caps do sound different.
- The first notion of the opposite claim “there is audible difference in capacitors” (true, in a different form) in this thread was in post #10, by @Jazz Man, which also is a proponent of the claim that caps do sound different.
- In your post #170 you were applauding to @johnmath (post #168) for bringing a claim that caps do sound different.
So, my dear friends @mountainman bob, @Jazz Man, @airvoid (and others), because you were the first ones to make such claims, the burden of proof is on you!
Anyone in elementary school would know that the burden of truth falls on the first one who make the claim.
That isn't what he meant in the first sentence, which was: "There is ample proof in this thread though that don’t even have a basic understanding of what science is." He probably accidently omitted, "many" or "most"
Again; I never made such a claim, I'm saying there is no evidence in either direction.
Yes I omitted 'many' and only saw that after the edit window expired.
Since you guys are so adamant that you're fighting a righteous crusade for science and stand on the side of truth agains snake oil,I suggest that @classicfan starts a class action lawsuit in the USA against these various snake oil manufacturers based on their 'false' claims. Should be a slam dunk bringing ya'll ample reward.
Last edited:
Oh really? You never made such a claim? Then, what is this:
And where is the beef? Here:
I rest my case, triumphantly. 😎
(commenting the post#168 from @johnmath)
And where is the beef? Here:
I rest my case, triumphantly. 😎
Last edited:
I don't quite see the connection between the room and capacitors but.....😉
One of the elephants in the room is ITD 🙂
You Can Prove a Negative | Psychology Today
Thinking Tools: You can Prove a negative | Think | Cambridge Core
There's plenty of other credible links via Google.
The only thing basic here is your argument.
The elephant is the actual speaker quality.
A bad speaker will not sound good just by changing capacitors.
Nor will a good speaker sound terrible by doing that.
Like I said, you are changing the makeup on the singer, the singer stays the same.
It is like changing the capacitors every time you change what you like to listen...
Queen? Brian May! X brand ganja fiber caps!
Maria Callas? Y Brand nylon fiber caps!
Church music? Z brand plain cotton fiber caps!
Use the equalizer, that is what it is for...
A bad speaker will not sound good just by changing capacitors.
Nor will a good speaker sound terrible by doing that.
Like I said, you are changing the makeup on the singer, the singer stays the same.
It is like changing the capacitors every time you change what you like to listen...
Queen? Brian May! X brand ganja fiber caps!
Maria Callas? Y Brand nylon fiber caps!
Church music? Z brand plain cotton fiber caps!
Use the equalizer, that is what it is for...
It could bring the singer into better focus regardless of the driver quality. How simple things would be if it was all about frequency response.
Ha, in absence of any scientific evidence that caps do sound different, you are turning to this - Can you prove a negative?!
Of course you can prove a negative ... sometimes ... in some cases. Not in all cases and all the time!
Let's see what is in your first link:
"If, on the other hand, "you can't prove a negative" means you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that something does not exist, well, that may, arguably, be true."
Hmmm... it looks like a shameful step-back from the bold headline "You can prove a negative"!
Let's see what is in the second link:
"If we're going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep doo-doo."
Yes, we are in deep, deep doo-doo! Because:
"induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible"
Indeed!
So what we can do? Although we can prove a negative in many cases, usually it is much, much easier to prove the positive! This is the case with our capacitor sound, or with the existence of life in Universe - beyond our Earth, or in many, many other cases.
Let's think about proving a negative: "There is no life in Universe, except on Earth". Fine, no problem - we must search all planets and moons in our Universe (quadrillions, quintillions of planets) to prove this negative. Only when we exhausted all planets (and moons) in the vast Universe, we can prove a negative. It seems it will take gigantic resources and a long time, though. Don't forget to take all your vinyl records on the space ship!
Now, let's think about proving a positive: There is life in Universe, except on Earth". Fine, no problem - we started the search and, surprise, surprise, just after six months we find it on the Jupiter moon Europa, in the ocean beneath the ice crust. We prove a positive, not going far from Earth! We don't need to search all quintillions of planets in our Universe.
Back to our capacitor sound. If we try to prove the negative: "There is no subjective sound difference between cheap and expensive capacitors", than we must compare all possible combinations of cheap and expensive caps, not forgetting the most exotic ones. And always someone will object: "but you didn't include The Platinum Unicorn Capacitor, which demonstrably has better sound than any other capacitor".
Proving a positive: "There is subjective sound difference between cheap and expensive capacitors" is much easier - maybe we need only 5 minutes and only two different capacitors to prove that!
So, @Face, please do prove a positive: "There is subjective sound difference between cheap and expensive capacitors"
Last edited:
There is a relatively simple test almost anyone could do so long as their system is reasonably well balanced. First use a mono source and set up your speakers as symetrically as you can, nearfield might make things easier, sit in the sweet spot and check that you can get a stable, focused image exactly in the centre. The material shouldn't matter too much, preferably something you like. 🙂
The second stage is simply to change one capacitor in one speaker (leaving the other speaker untouched) and listen for any changes, particularly in the quality and position of the image, including widening, narrowing, shifting and smearing.
The second stage is simply to change one capacitor in one speaker (leaving the other speaker untouched) and listen for any changes, particularly in the quality and position of the image, including widening, narrowing, shifting and smearing.
... and that is exactly how the wrong testing procedure looks like!
You must make a proper double blind ABX test, with a help of a friend (or two) which will switch between two capacitors.
You must make a proper double blind ABX test, with a help of a friend (or two) which will switch between two capacitors.
It seems to me that the burden is on you and others who support your claims of capacitor effects on sound to do the tests. So far no such legitimate tests have been reported here.
To expect people who don’t believe in something to do tests to prove themselves wrong is ridiculous. Yet that is exactly what you and others keep calling for even though it makes no sense.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.