reading the first patent the difference is a series resistor. At this point I just gave up the will to read the second one.
I'm always surprised that people argue over and over about the sound of passive components in the signal path. Every part has non linearities and losses which will affect the sound making its way through. In theory you should be able to measure and quantify these losses, but not all of them are documented despite our best knowledge and efforts. Just because we don't have a scientific explanation (yet) for isolating its affect on sound doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The thing that gets me most steamed is how a person's self educated (mis)interpretation of knowledge is crammed down others throats based on how their own personally appointed expert's "truth" (opinion) lines up with their own. The loudness and popularity of their voice also has great influence over this.
Just because people sound like they're an expert (again, based on the answers we like to hear) doesn't make them an expert. This is especially the case for people who claim to speak factual truth about other specialist areas in which they actually have little experience in. The same is the case for people who we deem as ignorant based on their social or educational status and give us answers we think are out of line - we tend to believe people who hold academic titles and tell us what we like to hear, even if it goes against our own perception, self education and reasoning. People who focus on and boast about titles usually do so for the sake of drawing extra attention to themselves.
For instance, Thomas Edison discredited Nicholai Tesla regarding the safety and efficacy of AC vs DC power, mainly to squash Tesla out of business and also because Tesla was making him look bad. Edison went to great lengths to discredit Tesla and try to make him look bad using his "superior knowledge" and patents, plus attacking Teslas character, influencing the way the public viewed him personally. This is the sort of thing politicians do to each other and has no bearing on the truth of anyone's scientific theories or findings.
We hear with more than just our ears. The ears are just part of the link to our interpretation of what we're hearing ie the microphones in our head. The brain is pretty complex and despite what all the audio expert's tend to say regarding how easy it is to fool us, there's alot of interpretive ability and computing power there to sort out seriously complex things that are going on. Some of it isn't easy to explain, but that doesn't mean it's not valid. Just harping on individual theories doesn't always explain it. The sum of all parts is what matters and not all parts are necessarily accounted for.
The fact is most experts have an agenda to bend the results in their own favor for some form of personal or business related gain. That's also called bias - the very thing people who don't agree, are accused of having. Pointing fingers and calling names doesn't make anyone right or wrong. It just draws attention to them (good or bad). If I can repeatably hear something that others can't explain, I don't need someone to come along and immediately make me feel like I'm wrong or even look stupid if they don't have a theory handy to explain it. A true scientist keeps an open mind and constantly tries to look beyond the current scope of things visible to them. Thats how we discover new things in this world. Otherwise we may as well believe the world is still flat and sit back feeling confident we already know it all.
The thing that gets me most steamed is how a person's self educated (mis)interpretation of knowledge is crammed down others throats based on how their own personally appointed expert's "truth" (opinion) lines up with their own. The loudness and popularity of their voice also has great influence over this.
Just because people sound like they're an expert (again, based on the answers we like to hear) doesn't make them an expert. This is especially the case for people who claim to speak factual truth about other specialist areas in which they actually have little experience in. The same is the case for people who we deem as ignorant based on their social or educational status and give us answers we think are out of line - we tend to believe people who hold academic titles and tell us what we like to hear, even if it goes against our own perception, self education and reasoning. People who focus on and boast about titles usually do so for the sake of drawing extra attention to themselves.
For instance, Thomas Edison discredited Nicholai Tesla regarding the safety and efficacy of AC vs DC power, mainly to squash Tesla out of business and also because Tesla was making him look bad. Edison went to great lengths to discredit Tesla and try to make him look bad using his "superior knowledge" and patents, plus attacking Teslas character, influencing the way the public viewed him personally. This is the sort of thing politicians do to each other and has no bearing on the truth of anyone's scientific theories or findings.
We hear with more than just our ears. The ears are just part of the link to our interpretation of what we're hearing ie the microphones in our head. The brain is pretty complex and despite what all the audio expert's tend to say regarding how easy it is to fool us, there's alot of interpretive ability and computing power there to sort out seriously complex things that are going on. Some of it isn't easy to explain, but that doesn't mean it's not valid. Just harping on individual theories doesn't always explain it. The sum of all parts is what matters and not all parts are necessarily accounted for.
The fact is most experts have an agenda to bend the results in their own favor for some form of personal or business related gain. That's also called bias - the very thing people who don't agree, are accused of having. Pointing fingers and calling names doesn't make anyone right or wrong. It just draws attention to them (good or bad). If I can repeatably hear something that others can't explain, I don't need someone to come along and immediately make me feel like I'm wrong or even look stupid if they don't have a theory handy to explain it. A true scientist keeps an open mind and constantly tries to look beyond the current scope of things visible to them. Thats how we discover new things in this world. Otherwise we may as well believe the world is still flat and sit back feeling confident we already know it all.
There is annoying ( at least to me ) fact for many "boutique" capacitors - no datasheets at all - just marketing prose.
Proper schooling and understanding would rectify that situation.
But if the underlying mental issue(s) isn't given attention, then all bets are off.
Does omniscience qualify as science to you?
In fairness, I would think the instances of legitimate mental issues (in a clinical sense) is pretty low - I personally think it is more a case of never been taught how to think critically combined with ego. On this - and other threads - there are those I would consider "smart" but they are operating from base assumptions that are incorrect - learning to seek, and correctly evaluate the validity of information that differs from out preconceived ideas is not a default behavior. The fact that this skill is so typically lacking is something that I lay the blame directly towards modern education - we are no longer allowed to be "wrong" - we are given the answers but not taught how to think. Every new hire here that comes in does so knowing what they were told to memorize in order to pass a test - and are completely clueless when required to solve a problem outside of their particular comfort zone. OK, rant mode off - been dealing with just such a case today and am feelin' the pain...
Hal
Glad this boring thread (all capacitor ones are such) dwindled into interesting discussions about Psychology and even bordering Philosophy.
Which is fine, it somewhat saves it from being an utter waste.
Nothing new was said about capacitors, of course, the epitome of "beating a dead horse".
Which is fine, it somewhat saves it from being an utter waste.
Nothing new was said about capacitors, of course, the epitome of "beating a dead horse".
So can one say that an MKP cap designed for higher current passive crossover duty may not be as suitable for line level, higher impedance use and vice vs?
I feel it doesn't matter unless the lead wires are designed for a specific purpose. I'd prefer solid core leads over stranded for line level and passive crossovers. Remember those MIT "multi" caps? I can understand the reasoning behind it, but the execution was lousy.
There were instances of the tried and true green Nichicon Muse UES bipolars sounding just as good as a pricy Wima MKP. It really depends on the voltage and current swing causing increased higher / odd order HD. Now if you raise the voltage swing across the cap, things get tricky. This is where good PIO caps can (and usually will) shine ie. in tube stage coupling. Internal inductance losses in some caps can cause audible problems - I don't like the way standard wound polycarbonate caps sound in RIAA stages. The stacked PC or PS design caps are much better for this.
I feel it doesn't matter unless the lead wires are designed for a specific purpose. I'd prefer solid core leads over stranded for line level and passive crossovers. Remember those MIT "multi" caps? I can understand the reasoning behind it, but the execution was lousy.
There were instances of the tried and true green Nichicon Muse UES bipolars sounding just as good as a pricy Wima MKP. It really depends on the voltage and current swing causing increased higher / odd order HD. Now if you raise the voltage swing across the cap, things get tricky. This is where good PIO caps can (and usually will) shine ie. in tube stage coupling. Internal inductance losses in some caps can cause audible problems - I don't like the way standard wound polycarbonate caps sound in RIAA stages. The stacked PC or PS design caps are much better for this.
I'm quite surprised that people still keep using the term "signal path" and seem to keep ignoring the aspect of "current loop".
In most cases, they are ridiculed and told to go elsewhere.
However, I posted my thoughts once when I joined that ASR forum and nothing was said to me.
All components in the circuit are in the signal path. I would call an "out of bandwidth of usage" component less critical in most cases, like say an ultrasonic notch or compensation involved at -40dB in the rolloff, BUT I have found instances where even these criteria would matter and be blatantly audible.
This would not be in the interests of said manufacturers, as it would expose the truth about their products. If the difference was audible they would have used such tests as a marketing tool ages ago.
Since the ability to think critically is a primary goal of education, it’s no surprise that people have tried to develop programs that could directly teach students to think critically without immersing them in any particular academic content. But the evidence shows that such programs primarily improve students’ thinking with the sort of problems they practiced in the program—not with other types of problems. More generally, it’s doubtful that a program that effectively teaches students to think critically in a variety of situations will ever be developed.
Taken from "APPENDIX B: Critical Thinking Programs: Lots of Time, Modest Benefit" from the paper attached below.
Moreover, there is addition research showing people don't learn generalized critical thinking so much they can learn to reason expertly in a particular field of study, given sufficient natural intelligence to begin with.
You have no basis for this. Arguments with pretensions to omniscience coupled with ad hominem-laced psychoanalysis at a distance are far more injurious to science acceptance than 'this cap sounds different to me.' Regular people may not know Popper's importance but they instinctively recognize impossible claims.
You're not helping.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.