You could do such a listening test in one room with one set of loudspeakers and only switch the capacitors, except that people may then claim that the poor quality of the switch or relay obscures the differences.
As far as I know, double-blind tests are normally done with the levels and frequency responses (if it is not the frequency response that is to be tested) matched within 0.1 dB, so a 5 % error is a lot.
As far as I know, double-blind tests are normally done with the levels and frequency responses (if it is not the frequency response that is to be tested) matched within 0.1 dB, so a 5 % error is a lot.
If the pole is below 20Hz, it (should) have about no effect in the audio band. (D.Self says to set electrolytic DC-blocks a couple of decades below 20Hz.)
A 2kHz crossover is smack in the middle of the audio band and the least flaw will stand out clearly.
I don't think anybody would propose to do a comparison where the system is dragged to different rooms every time a different capacitor is to be evaluated.
Neither do I. Sorry I think we crossed purposes. What I meant was that the difference between two crossover components at their respective tolerance limits (say one +5 one -5%) would be swamped by the effects of the typical asymmetric room.
But you want US to read all of them and give you a resumed version?
I suggest YOU do your own homework.
Google is your Friend [tm] 🙂
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chutzpah
Clearly you did not READ even a tiny fraction (not surprised about that) or you would have found that they are all FOR Technical accuracy and in general against unbased subjectivity/snake oil/myth/anything contradicting Physics Law
When I have dealt with high end capacitor manufacturers, like Vishay, the application engineers at the company could clearly articulate the measurable parameters that were optimized in the different capacitor lines they sold. Things like dielectric absorption, inductance, non-linearity of capacitance with voltage, micro phonics or just plane structural ruggedness. It was easy to see what your money was buying and if your design required the parameter values offered.
Yes, that is a beginning of knowledge, and I both respect and recognize that.
But then, as none less than Lord Kelvin said:
"“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.”
By the way, he also said:
“To measure is to know.”
“If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.”
If interested in his incredible achievements, :
https://physicsworld.com/a/in-praise-of-lord-kelvin/
It would be interesting to see how Lord Kelvin measured his theory of knowledge and expressed it in numbers.
But if the comparison is done in the same room with the speakers (and listeners!) in the same position, only changing the caps, would the room then swamp it? Rooms don't generally change all of a sudden I'd think.
Jan
The caps in the tests that were described in the referenced ASR thread were value matched to better than 1% iirc.
Jan
Yes I meant that fretting over matching left and right to (say) 1% is possibly pointless.
The title of this thread is "Measurement of high end capacitors versus standard quality foil capacitors". Is anyone here interested in actually trying to get some measurements done (rather than philosophical chit chat)?
I think the discussion was supposed to be on the measurements already done by that guy on ASR.
Jan
Jan
True. Then again despite his brilliance and accomplishments, he appears to have also made a few confident pronouncements later proven to be false:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willi...elvin#Pronouncements_later_proven_to_be_false
which ones in particular do you view to have clouded his legacy? For X-rays he just needed evidence (supplied) and heavier than air flight was not looking like something to bet your money on around 1900. The oxygen calculation is also seen as forgivable.
IIUC the record of what he is claimed to have said is available at: https://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/interview_aeronautics_and_wireless.html
If he is quoted correctly, then I would say he appears to have demonstrated the human cognitive bias Kahneman called, WYSIATI, which described by Kahneman at: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/02/conclusions
And or possibly demonstrating overconfidence bias and or confirmation bias. In other words, to me he sounds too sure that he knows all that can be known, which is a not-uncommon human tendency.
For instance, he is quoted as flat out saying: "Neither the balloon, nor the aeroplane, nor the gliding machine will be a practical success."
He is also quoted as saying: "...no motive power can drive a balloon through the air."
If he is quoted correctly, then I would say he appears to have demonstrated the human cognitive bias Kahneman called, WYSIATI, which described by Kahneman at: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/02/conclusions
And or possibly demonstrating overconfidence bias and or confirmation bias. In other words, to me he sounds too sure that he knows all that can be known, which is a not-uncommon human tendency.
For instance, he is quoted as flat out saying: "Neither the balloon, nor the aeroplane, nor the gliding machine will be a practical success."
He is also quoted as saying: "...no motive power can drive a balloon through the air."
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.