Expectation bias works equally well both ways, or do you deny that?Lots of people seem to deny expectation bias
Perhaps not. But it is exactly how volatile these numbers are, and a normal part of the components
Hi,
I've made enough headphone amplifiers and noticed one thing. The sound improved after an hour or two.
Every time I turned them on for the first time they sounded like hell and we tried to find the problem by measuring the currents and voltages or checking not to have accidentally mounted other resistance values.
Now I'm used to leaving them ON doing the necessary checks and listening to them later.
I don't know what the cause is. And I'm not too interested ...
I've made enough headphone amplifiers and noticed one thing. The sound improved after an hour or two.
Every time I turned them on for the first time they sounded like hell and we tried to find the problem by measuring the currents and voltages or checking not to have accidentally mounted other resistance values.
Now I'm used to leaving them ON doing the necessary checks and listening to them later.
I don't know what the cause is. And I'm not too interested ...
But some passives really need a break-in time. It is well-known in a world of precision measurements.
For example, precision resistors must break-in to become more stable (on a shelf or it is faster in a furnace). Precision Zeners must break-in under voltage to become more stable, and this effect is reversible for them (they loose stability w/o voltage).
So, those effects when passive parts change their properties are well-known. But they are not well-known in a world of 5-10% resistors (I am talking about audio too). The question is only how much those effects affect sound.
I have to add that I don't remember about a similar effects for film caps at the moment.
Last edited:
WHICH change?
Yeah, what change?
Seems a lot of people want to believe in a perceived change, and if any, it's likely because of some part of the circuitry is unstable, and in need of repair.
The internet will make you nuts if you read things from it too much.
How to explain a sonical change with words? I never put on an internet or listened to a pair of internets to experience a change. Also reading did not help. Listening is mostly done with ears.
Those people don't want to believe in a perceived change, they probably just experienced a change and describing exactly what the change contains is possibly quite hard*. That is what sets them apart and you try to describe that they are not right. However they heard it.
Now you don't believe that they heard it and you state "these people want to believe in a perceived change, and if any, it's likely because of some part of the circuitry is unstable, and in need of repair." This premise will make any open discussion hampered from the start. It is like an atheist discussing with a religious person that God does not exist. However, the religious person that is certain of the existence of God (or wants to believe in a perceived existence) is also not able to prove to the atheist that God exists. Neither of the 2 will ever convince the other....
*I described in detail what BG caps did/do when breaking in AKA "the change". One of the most obvious ones too. I bet that when you would experience that the discussion will end abruptly.
Those people don't want to believe in a perceived change, they probably just experienced a change and describing exactly what the change contains is possibly quite hard*. That is what sets them apart and you try to describe that they are not right. However they heard it.
Now you don't believe that they heard it and you state "these people want to believe in a perceived change, and if any, it's likely because of some part of the circuitry is unstable, and in need of repair." This premise will make any open discussion hampered from the start. It is like an atheist discussing with a religious person that God does not exist. However, the religious person that is certain of the existence of God (or wants to believe in a perceived existence) is also not able to prove to the atheist that God exists. Neither of the 2 will ever convince the other....
*I described in detail what BG caps did/do when breaking in AKA "the change". One of the most obvious ones too. I bet that when you would experience that the discussion will end abruptly.
Last edited:
I can understand:
A) chemical reactions both in passives and in tubes.
B) components self healing (essentially controlled partial self destruction)
C) temperature stabilisation effect.
However each of these should be measurable, and others can both repeat the experiment and achieve the same expected result.
Often I wonder how many “burnins” are the use of NOS tubes that need the better heated up for a while todo it’a job.
Given points A and B, I would expect any reputable manufacturer to declare it within the handling process for manufacturers should the component go outside of the specified design specifications & tolerances. This is not “engineering excellence” but rather risk management to prevent massive return costs and legal claims based on out-of-spec components that caused losses or life.
Unless.. you subscribe the “audiophile” caps of large manufacturers are just the reject binned caps that failed to remain within specification for their industrial offerings. (Or possibly remanufacture runs of old components just don’t get the same testing, use the same non RoHS chemicals or the lost skills of those experts from yesteryear).
I also wonder about NOS.. people getting old and possibly the last scrapings of the tube barrel.. then wondering why the getter needs an extended time to work or for the components to have been cooked during initial “burn in”.
However for me I would expect (untested hypothesis) that WIMA’s low risk (“competence in capacitors” tag line) approach means it’s unlikely that they would subscribe to but in deviations without declaring the behaviour.. unless they believe audiophiles are gullable to be told “for our audio line you may need to burn them in” knowing the return risk is low and nobody would use a audiophile cap for anything important… except the risk of volume and brand reputation if they tried that with large volume audio/visual manufacturers… or the fact they don’t make an exclusive “audiophile line” but the same MKPS etc are used in power, cars, drones etc.. so something else is amiss… like 5% tolerance causing a larger impact on audiophiles’ gear due to the design..
A) chemical reactions both in passives and in tubes.
B) components self healing (essentially controlled partial self destruction)
C) temperature stabilisation effect.
However each of these should be measurable, and others can both repeat the experiment and achieve the same expected result.
Often I wonder how many “burnins” are the use of NOS tubes that need the better heated up for a while todo it’a job.
Given points A and B, I would expect any reputable manufacturer to declare it within the handling process for manufacturers should the component go outside of the specified design specifications & tolerances. This is not “engineering excellence” but rather risk management to prevent massive return costs and legal claims based on out-of-spec components that caused losses or life.
Unless.. you subscribe the “audiophile” caps of large manufacturers are just the reject binned caps that failed to remain within specification for their industrial offerings
. (Or possibly remanufacture runs of old components just don’t get the same testing, use the same non RoHS chemicals or the lost skills of those experts from yesteryear).I also wonder about NOS.. people getting old and possibly the last scrapings of the tube barrel.. then wondering why the getter needs an extended time to work or for the components to have been cooked during initial “burn in”.
However for me I would expect (untested hypothesis) that WIMA’s low risk (“competence in capacitors” tag line) approach means it’s unlikely that they would subscribe to but in deviations without declaring the behaviour.. unless they believe audiophiles are gullable to be told “for our audio line you may need to burn them in” knowing the return risk is low and nobody would use a audiophile cap for anything important… except the risk of volume and brand reputation if they tried that with large volume audio/visual manufacturers… or the fact they don’t make an exclusive “audiophile line” but the same MKPS etc are used in power, cars, drones etc.. so something else is amiss… like 5% tolerance causing a larger impact on audiophiles’ gear due to the design..
Last edited:
with so many active and passive components in any product, how can ANY 'audiophile' select a SINGLE component and say 'this component is now run in?'. It is just utter non-sense. The amount of variables - air temperature, active and passive component operating temperature...and that is just the temperature related ones that do affect sound and how the components behave and this excludes how you have woken up on that day and how you feel.
I once heard a guy in a hifi show say that he heard the change between 2 transistors with the same part no - 2N4401 OnSemi and 2N4401 Fairchild CRAZY !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I once heard a guy in a hifi show say that he heard the change between 2 transistors with the same part no - 2N4401 OnSemi and 2N4401 Fairchild CRAZY !!!!!!!!!!!!!
WIMA do in fact manufacture specific capacitor designs for audio. The fact that the same attributes that suit audio might also suit other applications does not make the specific performance of the recommended designs for audio any less significant.
WIMA Capacitors for High End Audio Applications
I'm not 100% sure that these capacitors are specific to high-end audio...more like a marketing tool that is aimed at that industry. The ZTX851/951 are just 2 transistors that have ultra low noise properties but their spec sheets says for applications - Emergency Lighting systems. Zetex could easily aim these transistors at the audio industry. Quite a few guys here use them.
I think Wima like many others just use their marketing skills like any other brand - they saw a market and have tapped into it. Zetex should do the same.
I think Wima like many others just use their marketing skills like any other brand - they saw a market and have tapped into it. Zetex should do the same.
They are not specific to high end audio; nor should they be. I think I made the point that the attributes for high end audio are not unique quite clearly in my previous post.
Last edited:
Psst that "for audio" parts are ordinary...well let's call them "industrial" parts. If a manufacturer produces above average quality for industrial purposes then why make less strict specified parts for audio (because that is what often happens)? Given the lower demand opening a second production line for audio will not work out OK. It makes then more sense to use gold lettering and write "for audio" on them as applying a different sleeve is little effort.
Last edited:
WIMA have other ranges with tighter precision like the FKP2, which were readily available at 2% and even 1%, widely used in professional telecoms etc. Tolerance mattered in the days of high order discrete filtering. IC filters killed the demand and the precision end of the range got harder to get.
You seem to understand it. There is a difference that one can hear but measuring what happens is a difficult one obviously as the process is ongoing the first period.
For those that keep an open mind too a somewhat similar item:
DUAL Merus MA12070 fully balanced Amplifier pictures inside
I have a module with the chip and it really sounds better than other class D I know. Why/how do Merus chips sound so different ????
For those that keep an open mind too a somewhat similar item:
DUAL Merus MA12070 fully balanced Amplifier pictures inside
I have a module with the chip and it really sounds better than other class D I know. Why/how do Merus chips sound so different ????
Last edited: