If you have some good PDF software like Revu the search function can save you hours of searching by page turning
The most misleading, uncontrolled audiophile “test” ever perpetuated on the web, replete with leaps of assumption and inference by someone who equates a component performance evaluation with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
+1
It’s high time really for this totally made up nonsense to disappear. At least people should have the grace to stop posting the link into each and every capacitor thread.
... and he immediately invalidates his own test by stating up front: This means that it is very well possible that in a certain system a capacitor rated 8 points can sound better than a capacitor rated 10 points.
What a waste of bandwidth!
Jan
The art of electronics (third edition) in pdf format is currently freely available from archive.org.
That's about 4c a week averaged over an adult lifetime. Very cheap! Many people's lives have changed reading that book I suspect, especially those who struggle with the maths, its very accessible.
IMO, TAOE is good but you can quickly outgrow it. I'd put my money in the books by Self and Cordell because they're focused entirely on audio circuits. Also read the Bates articles on capacitors that were published in Wireless World. There's a 3-part series from Analog Devices that's good- https://www.analog.com/en/resources...rent-really-so-passive-part-1-capacitors.html Can't go wrong with this one either- https://www.analog.com/en/resources/technical-books/linear-circuit-design-handbook.html
The (in)famous HHH capacitor test makes me think of experienced wine connoisseurs who are able to discern a great wealth of information through smelling and tasting. Some may find it utter nonsense and even get vexed by it, other may take it as a guide into unkown territory and marvel in the shared discoveries...
At the very least I think it's fascinating from a psychological point of view, as are the subjectivist/objectivist stances this thread summons.
Nothing to do with wine, totally misleading analogy.
Capacitor nonsense is nothing to get vexed about, there is no unknown territory, and the only shared discoveries are empty pockets. Only fools would marvel at that.
All the books mentioned are immensely valuable. I paid retail prices for these and that was a tiny fraction of what it cost me to create the space to do this hobby. In Self’s small signal book he demonstrates the real measurable differences between capacitors in particular and even concedes that in particular some “audiophile” capacitors really are better in some applications, for example loudspeaker coupling caps although you pay a huge premium for these. He provides guidelines on how to avoid the worst pitfalls. Cordell’s advice is broadly similar, but differs in some details.
AoE is just a really brilliant book! X- chapters even more so! If you’re going to do this hobby for a while I’d say these books pay for themselves.
AoE is just a really brilliant book! X- chapters even more so! If you’re going to do this hobby for a while I’d say these books pay for themselves.
Search, read, repeat.
Do that for a couple or more years and also do a lot of listening, and testing of different parts in different applications, then you’ll have a better understanding of the different materials and physics involved.
Do that for a couple or more years and also do a lot of listening, and testing of different parts in different applications, then you’ll have a better understanding of the different materials and physics involved.
I guess it's no surprise that entity is being sued by publishers, though technically that's an off-topic discussion.
For those who prefer printed books at less-than-new prices, I see a couple copies of the Second Edition (Silver cover) of The Art Of Electronics here for under $20:
https://www.bookfinder.com/
I bought a used (but new-looking) copy of the Third Edition (Gold cover) for $50 a few years ago, and more recently (well, it took a few more years to publish) the X-Chapters. I'm shocked that the 3rd is now nine years old!
I remain open to the concept that capacitors in crossovers might sound slightly different but after owning three pairs of Gale 401s for a period, all of which had different types of capacitors from quite cheap to moderately expensive ,and not being able to hear much difference between them I am also pretty sceptical. I also have three different crossovers for my Tannoy Monitor Gold 15s including one with expensive Mundorf Supreme caps ,one mid priced Clarity Caps and another basic Jenzen crosscaps and can't hear much difference.If anything I prefer the mid priced Clarity caps but the differences are very slight. Changing 6SN7 valves in my preamp produces a much greater change in sound .A sensible position would be to use good quality but affordable dedicated crossover film caps like the Dayton MKTs.Which I have used in a number of speaker restorations and they seem to sound fine.
Last edited:
I had to look:
That last sentence ... 🤦♂️
The only audio component that "might" have a significant, audible and MEASURABLE change with "burn-in" is a woofer, as the compliance (surround and spider) loosens up with use, and that only affects the sound around resonance (the lowest end of its frequency range). It's better and more reliably done with a low frequency sine wave rather than typical listening material.
Perhaps "audible quality differences" comes down to how these elements' parasitics interact with the circuit at hand. A simple example comes from a famous designer speaker project who warned of not substituting different make, but same uH value inductances in his design. Why? Because the parasitic resistance of the substituted part would likely be different, screwing up the design's electrical performance and the sound.
Electronics as an art is like judo - you understand and use component parasitics to your advantage in a circuit design. Instead of "fight" them directly. So, given a designer has done this, substituting a seemingly "better" component is going to change the sound alright.
There's even examples of how component parasitics molded what "we" think sounds right. I'm pretty sure Gibson didnt go through all kind of capacitor formula iterations when thy dropped 0.47 / 0.047 Bunblebees into their guitar's tone control. They just used the parts that were good quality, reasonable price and available to them at that time. But now after we've all been trained over the years - OMG - the whole guitar doesnt sound "right" unless that particular PIO cap sits on the tone control wiper to ground.
I think its a matter of choosing wisely, based on the same level of understanding of component parasitics as the original designer, if your goal is to pick a part that sounds as good or better as what was called for in the BOM. There may be ways of detecting that the original designer wasnt competent at all, or was restricted by forces beyond their preferences, in their component choice. If you can do that as a logical deduction, rather than just guessing / shorgunning, that's where a better part may actually improve things.
An unfortunate example of shotgunning I once read was a note from a distraught McIntosh SS amp owner, who went through the whole amp replacing all the ceramic caps (which I was once told have no business being in an audio circuit...) with more fancy polyprop components. He turned his expensive amp into a power oscillator!
Electronics as an art is like judo - you understand and use component parasitics to your advantage in a circuit design. Instead of "fight" them directly. So, given a designer has done this, substituting a seemingly "better" component is going to change the sound alright.
There's even examples of how component parasitics molded what "we" think sounds right. I'm pretty sure Gibson didnt go through all kind of capacitor formula iterations when thy dropped 0.47 / 0.047 Bunblebees into their guitar's tone control. They just used the parts that were good quality, reasonable price and available to them at that time. But now after we've all been trained over the years - OMG - the whole guitar doesnt sound "right" unless that particular PIO cap sits on the tone control wiper to ground.
I think its a matter of choosing wisely, based on the same level of understanding of component parasitics as the original designer, if your goal is to pick a part that sounds as good or better as what was called for in the BOM. There may be ways of detecting that the original designer wasnt competent at all, or was restricted by forces beyond their preferences, in their component choice. If you can do that as a logical deduction, rather than just guessing / shorgunning, that's where a better part may actually improve things.
An unfortunate example of shotgunning I once read was a note from a distraught McIntosh SS amp owner, who went through the whole amp replacing all the ceramic caps (which I was once told have no business being in an audio circuit...) with more fancy polyprop components. He turned his expensive amp into a power oscillator!