A capacitor is a notion in our head, a symbol on a schematic and a mathematical function in a simulator. But a wet, electrolytic can capacitor, that we build our psus with, is a physical object constructed of metal, paper (or similar), liquid, plastic, sealant, oxide. It is merely a manufacturer's approximation to an ideal capacitor. And it has many, deliberate compromises to make it competitive in its target market and to reduce production cost. These compromises affect its electrical behaviour in unexpected ways.
That's right tombo56. Capacitance is the essential characteristic of a capacitor. Ok, that sounds asinine. But it is too easy to lose sight of this. It's just taken for granted and instead we get excited about inductance and ESR, and cumbb about current dispersal.
🤷♂️
Your question was fishing for a kindergarten answer - fine for teaching kindergarten but I don't see such a simple relationship if the game is changed radically when we progress to using less material (i.e paper, aluminium foil, electrolyte) while achieving the same or even greater capacitance, as in some more recent products.
Last edited:
My experience: with the same capacity but larger designs: larger foils, often runs the signal audibly apart. I used large designs at most for a few octaves. Only a few large capacitors sound consistent and homogeneous like small ones.
Aside:
In the Einstein amplifier sit some of the best sounding capacitors I've heard. The two yellow things;-) 6.8 uF. 4 pieces in each Einstein. But only as a cap bridge in the supply voltages for input and driver of the power amplifier.
Whereas in this amplifier some of the worst sounding capacitors are used as e.g. coupling capacitors. The two red things. Phono output and line output;-)
Best proof that has not been developed with the ears;-)
In the Einstein amplifier sit some of the best sounding capacitors I've heard. The two yellow things;-) 6.8 uF. 4 pieces in each Einstein. But only as a cap bridge in the supply voltages for input and driver of the power amplifier.
Whereas in this amplifier some of the worst sounding capacitors are used as e.g. coupling capacitors. The two red things. Phono output and line output;-)
Best proof that has not been developed with the ears;-)
Attachments
The red arrows point to what are likely metallized polypropylene film caps. If original Panasonic products, they are actually very good for audio by comparison with common metallized polyester film caps. People here at least, often choose cheap copies of such older and popular components - not just because they are cheap but unknowingly, because they audibly distort the sound, adding harmonics for rich tones, enhanced "details" etc.
So when you point to "good sounding" components it doesn't tell us the full story. You could be telling us that they are good simply because in another amplifier and application, they sounded nice to your ears, in comparison with what they replaced. Someone else may conclude that the opposite is true and also be correct in this global confusion of component products and their qualities
So when you point to "good sounding" components it doesn't tell us the full story. You could be telling us that they are good simply because in another amplifier and application, they sounded nice to your ears, in comparison with what they replaced. Someone else may conclude that the opposite is true and also be correct in this global confusion of component products and their qualities
Last edited:
BTW, I stumbled upon this simple design article with links to a bundle of other good, concise articles covering just about any other capacitor qualities, interests and needs we might have. Enjoy! https://passive-components.eu/capacitor-selection-for-coupling-and-decoupling-applications/
Last edited:
The less complex the circumstances, the clearer the audible characters. With highly complex circumstances, e.g. circuits and setups, everything ends in sonic mumbo-jumbo. Which can, for example, welcome a sizzling, scratchy condenser, so that a bit of life comes back into the joint;-)
Which would you prefer cumbb, just 1 capacitor contributing 0.5% distortion to your audio amplifier's or 10 capacitors contributing a total of 0.5% distortion? Does it matter how the distortion arises or is there some distortion which is benign (harmless) and some that is nasty (obvious and annoying) though both are the same level?
"Distortion" is a misunderstood, misapplied Misname in audio, and audio electronics: describe 0,5 % audible distortions.
More relevant is what the ear perceives: would 1 or 10 (identic?) condensers, at the same place and function in a circuit, with "identical" "distortion" of 0.5% also sound "identical" "distorting"-?
May be, the most do confuse "distortions" (thd, tmd...) and (all sorts of) "noise" - in audio.
Condenser was the title used by seventies manufacturers who couldn't compete with Japanese and Asian products. Before colour TV arrived here in Oz, we had several producers of film and electrolytic caps. When these substantial businesses were sold off, merged or simply closed their factories, the condenser name seemed to die with them. The US title "capacitor" prevailed, I think, by their strong demand and therefore influence on Japanese manufacturers.
I think you mean that you don't like to see sound qualities described with nasty words like distortion. Well, anything - virtually any persistent sound effect or deviation you hear or measure in the audio that is not identical in scale to the program source is distortion, like it or not. In a noiseless audio system, if one amplifier sounds good and another bad, one or both will be producing audible distortion in one form or another, by definition.
You may be able to say that some particular sound quality or effect is non-linearity, that one is due to bad component quality or the design is not optimal, phase is shifted, hum present etc. but these will all appear as distortion when compared in scale with the audio system input signal.
That's a useful article describing well known capacitor characteristics. It has omissions in the context of audio, though. Which is par for the course.
I think Ian is defining any (non-linear) deviation from the original signal as distortion. I take your point, though, that what is commonly called distortion is not the whole picture. In fact, I think the specification and measurement of THD has done more harm than good to the industry.
Distortion as a generic term. Yes. Actually I also think so.
However, in the "audio electronics" discourse it is generally used for distortions of oscillations in electrical oscillating circuits, audio circuits (comparable to string vibrations of musical instruments).
Besides as a subterm runs all sorts of noise. The vast majority of audio freaks do not care about these, because their school electrical education focused on peek measurement methods, closing the access to measurement methods like hearing.
But noise is what the ear is made to perceive: differences, that can be put into an order according to experience and logic: Waves, wave complexes:
for example music.
Approx that's what I think about it ;-)
However, in the "audio electronics" discourse it is generally used for distortions of oscillations in electrical oscillating circuits, audio circuits (comparable to string vibrations of musical instruments).
Besides as a subterm runs all sorts of noise. The vast majority of audio freaks do not care about these, because their school electrical education focused on peek measurement methods, closing the access to measurement methods like hearing.
But noise is what the ear is made to perceive: differences, that can be put into an order according to experience and logic: Waves, wave complexes:
for example music.
Approx that's what I think about it ;-)
Heh, heh.....that's just an illustration of where the coupling, decoupling or bypass capacitors are located in an elementary audio circuit. It could be just a small signal amplifier or a buffer stage 
Last edited:
'Unsure of what you're pointing out there Trader but I presume you mean it's good or better to see potential where others may ignore it in their reliance on working with familiar concepts, objects or purposes. I'd go along with that, if I had the professional confidence to see and encourage fresh ideas.
Last edited: