FOR THE SAKE OF COMPARISON
Hi,
Fine,I'll take your word for it.
I usually use the MIT RTX polystyrene and find them much better than any other filmcap I ever tried (and I tried quite a lot).
IMHO they come as close to no cap at all and yes they are directive and require some break in period too.
I understand that the BG are a godsend where you need higher values for coupling purposes at lower voltages.
But saying that the BGs are sonically more transparent than the best filmcaps is a bit hard to believe from my experience.
I also frown at people using some old PIO caps (yes some are OK) that are so euphonic in the midband that I wouldn't even call that hi-fi anymore.
Anyone is entitled to their own colourations of course but as JP put it a PIO (unbypassed) is just not my cupper.
Cheers,
Hi,
Fine,I'll take your word for it.
I usually use the MIT RTX polystyrene and find them much better than any other filmcap I ever tried (and I tried quite a lot).
IMHO they come as close to no cap at all and yes they are directive and require some break in period too.
I understand that the BG are a godsend where you need higher values for coupling purposes at lower voltages.
But saying that the BGs are sonically more transparent than the best filmcaps is a bit hard to believe from my experience.
I also frown at people using some old PIO caps (yes some are OK) that are so euphonic in the midband that I wouldn't even call that hi-fi anymore.
Anyone is entitled to their own colourations of course but as JP put it a PIO (unbypassed) is just not my cupper.
Cheers,
Eric:
>Can you describe the sort of BG colouration that you are speaking of?<
First, please understand that the only way that I use any electrolytics is as power supply capacitors. If you want an opinion on how the Black Gates sound when used as, say, coupling caps, I am not the right person to ask!
Describing the sound of the Black Gates is somewhat tricky, not the least because they sound different according to what you play through them.
Starting from the bottom end, the resolution is fairly good, and the sense of volume is decent. Low-end extension is also decent. There is some extra energy in the upper-bass ~ midrange that adds a sense of richness but pushes the vocal range forward. The top end isn't exactly lacking, but compared to what the Black Gates can do on the bottom end, both the resolution and extension of the top end are wanting. Overall, the Black Gates come across as rather pleasant-sounding, but somewhat soft. Imaging tends to be a little clumped in the center - I don't think that the soundstage width is especially remarkable.
On transient-laden material (like percussion), I find the Black Gates to be rather different and decidedly more problematic. Here the softness gets in the way, and blunts and dulls the attacks that should be there. And despite that the resolution is not bad, it is accompanied by a distinct sense of veiling and a lack of ultimate clarity - a strange combination to say the least. The Black Gates also seem to lower pitches somehow, like the music has been transposed downward a semitone or two.
The Black Gates certainly sound distinctive, and they are undoubtedly capable of delivering a sound that would be difficult to achieve through other means. It is easy to understand why many audiophiles adore the sound of the Black Gates.
>What do you mean by "strong and complex".<
Umm. Strong = hard to ignore, and even harder to get rid of. Complex = schizophrenic.
>Is it possible to measure distortions as low as -174 dB?<
In my experience, most setups will start encountering problems around -160dB (many can't even do that), and the lower you go, the harder it gets.
regards, jonathan carr
>Can you describe the sort of BG colouration that you are speaking of?<
First, please understand that the only way that I use any electrolytics is as power supply capacitors. If you want an opinion on how the Black Gates sound when used as, say, coupling caps, I am not the right person to ask!
Describing the sound of the Black Gates is somewhat tricky, not the least because they sound different according to what you play through them.
Starting from the bottom end, the resolution is fairly good, and the sense of volume is decent. Low-end extension is also decent. There is some extra energy in the upper-bass ~ midrange that adds a sense of richness but pushes the vocal range forward. The top end isn't exactly lacking, but compared to what the Black Gates can do on the bottom end, both the resolution and extension of the top end are wanting. Overall, the Black Gates come across as rather pleasant-sounding, but somewhat soft. Imaging tends to be a little clumped in the center - I don't think that the soundstage width is especially remarkable.
On transient-laden material (like percussion), I find the Black Gates to be rather different and decidedly more problematic. Here the softness gets in the way, and blunts and dulls the attacks that should be there. And despite that the resolution is not bad, it is accompanied by a distinct sense of veiling and a lack of ultimate clarity - a strange combination to say the least. The Black Gates also seem to lower pitches somehow, like the music has been transposed downward a semitone or two.
The Black Gates certainly sound distinctive, and they are undoubtedly capable of delivering a sound that would be difficult to achieve through other means. It is easy to understand why many audiophiles adore the sound of the Black Gates.
>What do you mean by "strong and complex".<
Umm. Strong = hard to ignore, and even harder to get rid of. Complex = schizophrenic.
>Is it possible to measure distortions as low as -174 dB?<
In my experience, most setups will start encountering problems around -160dB (many can't even do that), and the lower you go, the harder it gets.
regards, jonathan carr
Re: FOR THE SAKE OF COMPARISON
Hi Frank,
As you may see from my posts in the other two threads on BGs, I also find that the non-polar BGs are the equal of MIT RTXs, when used as a coupling cap, which came as a considerable surprise to me.
There are differences, of course, but I would have difficulty in making the 'sonic' choice between them, as taken as a whole, their good and bad points seem to mainly even out.
Prior to trying BGs, I would also have had great difficulty in believing this, but it is so, and as I also said elsewhere, like you I have found that RTXs are about as revealing and neutral as any (*readily available*, in case Jonathan is reading this!) plastic film cap.
For well over 20 years, I would not have even bothered to try an electrolytic in a signal path (or feedback DC blocking) location as I knew that they all sounded frightful here.
Indeed, also many years ago during a visit to listen to my gear, I convinced John Linsley Hood (the UK designer who was always staunchly objectivist by nature), to get rid of electrolytics in the feedback paths of his designs, when he heard one of mine which had been modified to allow the use of plastic films in this location.
Thereafter, JLH adopted the same approach as me, and gave me an 'unnamed accolade' in some of his later writings, for what it is worth!
It was only as a result of my 'open mind', allied to natural curiosity, that a couple of years or so ago I tried BGs ( having read somewhere about them), and I was very agreeably surprised at what I heard.
However, initially, these trials were only in power supplies and as local 'on card' bypassing of regs etc., and not in any signal paths.
If you can get along with the ridiculous burn-in period, and stomach the excessive cost, I think you would like them, especially if you like RTXs.
Incidentally, the only places I have used BGs as *coupling caps* is in a tuner, and these were only low values (i.e. 0.1uF) and they happen to be cheaper and very much smaller than comparable RTXs, so they were also easier to fit in here.
When I originally fitted the earlier 20 or so RTXs to this tuner, it was a major 'shoehorn job' (even *0.01uf* - 600v RTXs are about 26mm x 11mm) whereas the higher value *0.1uf* BG NX HiQs I used for substitution are only about 7mm x 4mm. I ended up with nearly as many components soldered underneath the boards in this tuner, by the time I had finished all of the mods, as I had on top!
Before anyone 'jumps on the bandwagon', I should point out that at these high frequencies (i.e. RF), a cap orders of magnitude lower (like 0.001uF or less, would have been adequate here), so this did not adversely affect the comparison.
Used as Jelmax's recommended 'Super E' configuration (explained many times in their white papers), which regrettably requires twice the number of caps, certainly gave a further improvement over the NX HiQs, but doubles the already obscene costs!
Why not try some of the small ones and see what you think?
Whilst they can hardly be described as cheap!!!, the smaller values are only two or three UK pounds each, and will hardly break the bank!
Regards,
fdegrove said:Hi,
Fine,I'll take your word for it.
I usually use the MIT RTX polystyrene and find them much better than any other filmcap I ever tried (and I tried quite a lot).
IMHO they come as close to no cap at all and yes they are directive and require some break in period too.
But saying that the BGs are sonically more transparent than the best filmcaps is a bit hard to believe from my experience.
Cheers,
Hi Frank,
As you may see from my posts in the other two threads on BGs, I also find that the non-polar BGs are the equal of MIT RTXs, when used as a coupling cap, which came as a considerable surprise to me.
There are differences, of course, but I would have difficulty in making the 'sonic' choice between them, as taken as a whole, their good and bad points seem to mainly even out.
Prior to trying BGs, I would also have had great difficulty in believing this, but it is so, and as I also said elsewhere, like you I have found that RTXs are about as revealing and neutral as any (*readily available*, in case Jonathan is reading this!) plastic film cap.
For well over 20 years, I would not have even bothered to try an electrolytic in a signal path (or feedback DC blocking) location as I knew that they all sounded frightful here.
Indeed, also many years ago during a visit to listen to my gear, I convinced John Linsley Hood (the UK designer who was always staunchly objectivist by nature), to get rid of electrolytics in the feedback paths of his designs, when he heard one of mine which had been modified to allow the use of plastic films in this location.
Thereafter, JLH adopted the same approach as me, and gave me an 'unnamed accolade' in some of his later writings, for what it is worth!
It was only as a result of my 'open mind', allied to natural curiosity, that a couple of years or so ago I tried BGs ( having read somewhere about them), and I was very agreeably surprised at what I heard.
However, initially, these trials were only in power supplies and as local 'on card' bypassing of regs etc., and not in any signal paths.
If you can get along with the ridiculous burn-in period, and stomach the excessive cost, I think you would like them, especially if you like RTXs.
Incidentally, the only places I have used BGs as *coupling caps* is in a tuner, and these were only low values (i.e. 0.1uF) and they happen to be cheaper and very much smaller than comparable RTXs, so they were also easier to fit in here.
When I originally fitted the earlier 20 or so RTXs to this tuner, it was a major 'shoehorn job' (even *0.01uf* - 600v RTXs are about 26mm x 11mm) whereas the higher value *0.1uf* BG NX HiQs I used for substitution are only about 7mm x 4mm. I ended up with nearly as many components soldered underneath the boards in this tuner, by the time I had finished all of the mods, as I had on top!
Before anyone 'jumps on the bandwagon', I should point out that at these high frequencies (i.e. RF), a cap orders of magnitude lower (like 0.001uF or less, would have been adequate here), so this did not adversely affect the comparison.
Used as Jelmax's recommended 'Super E' configuration (explained many times in their white papers), which regrettably requires twice the number of caps, certainly gave a further improvement over the NX HiQs, but doubles the already obscene costs!
Why not try some of the small ones and see what you think?
Whilst they can hardly be described as cheap!!!, the smaller values are only two or three UK pounds each, and will hardly break the bank!
Regards,
BEEGEES
Hello Bob,
Thank you for the time and effort...seems we both have been fighting on the same frontline.
Given a chance I'm certainly willing to give them a serious listen.
Now if only someone could sort out the fault condition situation I would certainly be more convinced .
While I agree that in both the Ceasar circuit and Tomatitos' situation the insulation voltage of the cap was badly chosen I find this still quite worrysome.
Apparently no one answering to that thread seems fully aware of the risk at hand and any answers are vague to say the least.
Naturally I don't expect anyone to recreate the situation just for the fun of it.
Cheers,
Hello Bob,
Thank you for the time and effort...seems we both have been fighting on the same frontline.
Given a chance I'm certainly willing to give them a serious listen.
Now if only someone could sort out the fault condition situation I would certainly be more convinced .
While I agree that in both the Ceasar circuit and Tomatitos' situation the insulation voltage of the cap was badly chosen I find this still quite worrysome.
Apparently no one answering to that thread seems fully aware of the risk at hand and any answers are vague to say the least.
Naturally I don't expect anyone to recreate the situation just for the fun of it.
Cheers,
Being stubborn, Frank ?
Frank ,please see the other thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9179&pagenumber=3
The comment of Jaap that his 300B failed and the BG cap survived it ! I spoke to someone who was sure in one case the 300B shorted and the BG took 400 V DC. It shorted and blew. So that's one case it which it survived and in one case it blew.
Any 100 V electrolytic with 85 V DC on it with an extra ( large ) AC component will fail. If not at startup then after some time. If they take 400 V I am sure they will all short and blow.
Go to a shop , buy 2 pieces rated 160 v and you will very probably never see them fail in your lifetime ( unless the 300B's fail of course ).
Use a fuse in the PS nevertheless because some russian crap 300B's have a tendency of failure. Sometimes they short, sometimes the filaments break. In case they short there is not one single cap that will be happy with the situation.
You want answers to a question that one can ask concerning all other caps in that situation. What do you want to hear ?
Frank ,please see the other thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9179&pagenumber=3
The comment of Jaap that his 300B failed and the BG cap survived it ! I spoke to someone who was sure in one case the 300B shorted and the BG took 400 V DC. It shorted and blew. So that's one case it which it survived and in one case it blew.
Any 100 V electrolytic with 85 V DC on it with an extra ( large ) AC component will fail. If not at startup then after some time. If they take 400 V I am sure they will all short and blow.
Go to a shop , buy 2 pieces rated 160 v and you will very probably never see them fail in your lifetime ( unless the 300B's fail of course ).
Use a fuse in the PS nevertheless because some russian crap 300B's have a tendency of failure. Sometimes they short, sometimes the filaments break. In case they short there is not one single cap that will be happy with the situation.
You want answers to a question that one can ask concerning all other caps in that situation. What do you want to hear ?
RE:Being stubborn, Frank ?
Hi Jean-Paul,
Well,yes.
But it is sounding more and more like confused terminoligy to me.
Regular elco's blow up and you're left with an open circuit.
(Just like a fuse would.)
What you have is a big mess...quite likely an open circuit in the cathode resistor and that's about it.
And you better look at that tube too.
Other than that nothing usually happens.
However if the BG tends to go into full conduction as if they were wired to ground than that's a very dangerous situation.
It wil definitely take the tube and cathode resistor with it and one leading to the other things can start to catch fire.
This is how I have understood what happened on one ocassion.
If this is a one off a kind then fine,if they all tend to do this then I would like to know that.
Hopefully you understand my concern?
Other then that I have no questions about this.
Cheers,
Hi Jean-Paul,
Well,yes.
But it is sounding more and more like confused terminoligy to me.
Regular elco's blow up and you're left with an open circuit.
(Just like a fuse would.)
What you have is a big mess...quite likely an open circuit in the cathode resistor and that's about it.
And you better look at that tube too.
Other than that nothing usually happens.
However if the BG tends to go into full conduction as if they were wired to ground than that's a very dangerous situation.
It wil definitely take the tube and cathode resistor with it and one leading to the other things can start to catch fire.
This is how I have understood what happened on one ocassion.
If this is a one off a kind then fine,if they all tend to do this then I would like to know that.
Hopefully you understand my concern?
Other then that I have no questions about this.
Cheers,
i agree Black Gates are not completely transparent (what is?) but i disagree that their colorations are gross and unacceptable. but a lot depends on application.
break-in time is key, and yes, the sound does vary somewhat wildly during that period. it swings between thin and hard to warm and fuzzy and everywhere in between, before finally settling down to a fairly neutral sound after several dozen hours of use. break-in times of hundreds of hours are not uncommon in my experience.
i replaced the Elna Cerafine polar coupling caps after a Burr-Brown DAC in my Sony SACD player with a BG-N 10uF/50V, and after the tonal balanced settled down w/some break-in i found the sound very nice. more transparent and dynamic, less fuzziness, although compared to the best films i think BG is not 100% immune ffrom a that slight fuzziness typical of 'lytics. but it is very nice, and it's very compact and easy to use.
i'm assumming we're talking about nonpolar N/NX series of course. when you need large values in a tight space, i really can't think of a better cap. i'm sure MIT polystyrene sounds great but where you going to get a 10uF polystyrene? for that size, i would say a Black Gate N/NX with some DC bias on it sounds better than many polypropylene films.
break-in time is key, and yes, the sound does vary somewhat wildly during that period. it swings between thin and hard to warm and fuzzy and everywhere in between, before finally settling down to a fairly neutral sound after several dozen hours of use. break-in times of hundreds of hours are not uncommon in my experience.
i replaced the Elna Cerafine polar coupling caps after a Burr-Brown DAC in my Sony SACD player with a BG-N 10uF/50V, and after the tonal balanced settled down w/some break-in i found the sound very nice. more transparent and dynamic, less fuzziness, although compared to the best films i think BG is not 100% immune ffrom a that slight fuzziness typical of 'lytics. but it is very nice, and it's very compact and easy to use.
i'm assumming we're talking about nonpolar N/NX series of course. when you need large values in a tight space, i really can't think of a better cap. i'm sure MIT polystyrene sounds great but where you going to get a 10uF polystyrene? for that size, i would say a Black Gate N/NX with some DC bias on it sounds better than many polypropylene films.
black gate = money black hole ??
Hi guys,
I have been looking for info on that famous CLT-1 dist measuring testset, capable of measuring to -174dB @ 10kHz.
I found several sites, one even showing a CLT-1 service manual, but all are in Japanes...! (The title was in english, that's why I know it was the service manual. Wise guy. At least it said "servicemanual.pdf").
(dansystem.co.jp, asahi-net, sound-web)
Anybody has info on this thing in arabic characters?
Jan Didden
(No, I haven't listened to BGs yet. I did, however, read a couple of the "Technical Reports" on the partsxpress page. Technical Reports, my foot!)
Hi guys,
I have been looking for info on that famous CLT-1 dist measuring testset, capable of measuring to -174dB @ 10kHz.
I found several sites, one even showing a CLT-1 service manual, but all are in Japanes...! (The title was in english, that's why I know it was the service manual. Wise guy. At least it said "servicemanual.pdf").
(dansystem.co.jp, asahi-net, sound-web)
Anybody has info on this thing in arabic characters?
Jan Didden
(No, I haven't listened to BGs yet. I did, however, read a couple of the "Technical Reports" on the partsxpress page. Technical Reports, my foot!)
Re: black gate = money black hole ??
Hi Jan,
If I may be so bold as to say so, this is another very worthwhile addition to this post, and very informative too!
I don't feel obliged to defend BGs in any way, but I was responsible for pointing out where this information was located (for anyone who complained about lack of information on BGs) but I did also suggest that it might be an idea to read (all of) this information prior to further condemning it.
I see that you have managed to look at a "couple" of reports, and maybe there is some juvenile pleasure in ridiculing them all as result of that.
However, if you had taken the trouble to look a little further, you would have realised that in some of the other pages there is a great deal of information about BGs, and, indeed, as I said before, I know of no other manufacturer who does the same.
There are details of their measured performance, their suggested applications and some suggested circuits where the use of these caps should be beneficial. Also there are some comparative graphs relating their 'benefits' and some very useful results of measurements relating to other makes & types of caps (where, presumably, Jelmax have no axe to grind!), so if this is not "technical" in content, I don't know what is!
Of course, as I also said before, one doesn't necessarily have to believe *all* that one reads in these "reports" (many of which are not strictly "technical") as they are by way of promoting sales, although, what is new or wrong about that?
I have carefully read them all, several times, because unlike yourself (it seems) I wish to find the very best performing components in my audio system, and some information (not all!) which I have gleaned from Jelmax's notes was very useful to me, especially as to where it is worthwhile trying these obscenely priced components.
What is the point of continuing to deride BGs in such a bigoted way, when, as you admit quite readily, you have absolutely no personal experience of these caps yourself?
Are you, perhaps, attempting to convince yourself that they simply cannot be in any way special, or what?
For the rest of us who have tried these overpriced caps for ourselves, the overwhelming consensus seems to be that they are the best electrolytics currently available, but if you wish to continue to bury your head in the sand for whatever reason, then so be it. You are the loser!
Haven't you ever wondered why those who have made comparisons like myself, all seem to agree that, for example, Cerafines (also very costly, although less so) are not sonically so good?
If we are all deluding ourselves, why don't we do a more thorough job and say that these Cerafines are better sounding, *and* cheaper, which always seems to give those who are attempting to impress other people some sense of satisfaction, that they have also 'saved' themselves some money?
Regards,
janneman said:
Hi Jan,
If I may be so bold as to say so, this is another very worthwhile addition to this post, and very informative too!
I don't feel obliged to defend BGs in any way, but I was responsible for pointing out where this information was located (for anyone who complained about lack of information on BGs) but I did also suggest that it might be an idea to read (all of) this information prior to further condemning it.
I see that you have managed to look at a "couple" of reports, and maybe there is some juvenile pleasure in ridiculing them all as result of that.
However, if you had taken the trouble to look a little further, you would have realised that in some of the other pages there is a great deal of information about BGs, and, indeed, as I said before, I know of no other manufacturer who does the same.
There are details of their measured performance, their suggested applications and some suggested circuits where the use of these caps should be beneficial. Also there are some comparative graphs relating their 'benefits' and some very useful results of measurements relating to other makes & types of caps (where, presumably, Jelmax have no axe to grind!), so if this is not "technical" in content, I don't know what is!
Of course, as I also said before, one doesn't necessarily have to believe *all* that one reads in these "reports" (many of which are not strictly "technical") as they are by way of promoting sales, although, what is new or wrong about that?
I have carefully read them all, several times, because unlike yourself (it seems) I wish to find the very best performing components in my audio system, and some information (not all!) which I have gleaned from Jelmax's notes was very useful to me, especially as to where it is worthwhile trying these obscenely priced components.
What is the point of continuing to deride BGs in such a bigoted way, when, as you admit quite readily, you have absolutely no personal experience of these caps yourself?
Are you, perhaps, attempting to convince yourself that they simply cannot be in any way special, or what?
For the rest of us who have tried these overpriced caps for ourselves, the overwhelming consensus seems to be that they are the best electrolytics currently available, but if you wish to continue to bury your head in the sand for whatever reason, then so be it. You are the loser!
Haven't you ever wondered why those who have made comparisons like myself, all seem to agree that, for example, Cerafines (also very costly, although less so) are not sonically so good?
If we are all deluding ourselves, why don't we do a more thorough job and say that these Cerafines are better sounding, *and* cheaper, which always seems to give those who are attempting to impress other people some sense of satisfaction, that they have also 'saved' themselves some money?
Regards,
Better electrolytic than Black Gate?
Well after some more listening tests on a friends SE triode and also my electrostatic headphone amplifier in my opinion the Black Gate NH non-polar in the Super E configuration is second choice in electrolytics.
My first choice is the Jensen 4 pole electrolytic and high voltage electrolytic.
Regards all.
Well after some more listening tests on a friends SE triode and also my electrostatic headphone amplifier in my opinion the Black Gate NH non-polar in the Super E configuration is second choice in electrolytics.
My first choice is the Jensen 4 pole electrolytic and high voltage electrolytic.
Regards all.
Re: Better electrolytic than Black Gate?
Hi Craig,
An interesting point about electrolytics which I cannot make any worthwhile comments on, as, so far, I have not tried these particular capacitors.
Assuming you have reached this conclusion following a direct comparison beween the different makes of cap in the same location, and they have both had adequate burn-in time (possibly up to three months, as I have outlined before), then they must be worthwhile investigating for myself.
Hitherto, in all three of the recent threads on BGs, apart from Jonathan Carr (who prefers his own 'specials' which he is lucky enough to have made to order), no-one else who has commented, has stated he preferred *any* other make than BGs.
Like myself, most of the other commentators have tried and specifically mentioned Cerafines, Silmics, Panasonics, Oscons, Nichicons, Rifas, and in my case about 20 other more 'ordinary' non-audiophile caps, and we all appear to be in accord over BGs.
I have always been the first to say that BGs are way overpriced, and a pain in the a*s* to burn in, so if there is a way of improving on these, I will welcome this readily.
Where did you get your recommended Jensens from, by the way, as I will get in touch with that supplier with a view to seeing (or rather listening!) for myself, and is there a part no. or type code for them, as I guess Jensen make several different series (a few of which I have already come across)?
Incidentally, what really irks me and caused me to spend time posting on this thread, is the large number of supposed experts, who, by their own admission, haven't even bothered to try any BGs for themselves, and yet they continue to deride them!
If any of them say they have tried BGs (like you) and *then* subsequently say they prefer another cap instead (or maybe cannot get on with BG's foibles, or whatever), then that is an entirely different matter, and this revelation may well lead to my further improving the overall sound of my system.
This is the way that some positive progress along the lines of 'sonic' improvements will be made, and not by the multitude of completely uninformed comments which are based purely on guesswork, which are counter-productive as they discourage others from trying out these components for themselves.
It takes a very determined DIYer to fly in the face of the 'average' comments, especially when the components are so ridiculously expensive, and that their burn-in is notoriuosly awkward and lengthy.
Regards,
CraigBuckingham said:
Hi Craig,
An interesting point about electrolytics which I cannot make any worthwhile comments on, as, so far, I have not tried these particular capacitors.
Assuming you have reached this conclusion following a direct comparison beween the different makes of cap in the same location, and they have both had adequate burn-in time (possibly up to three months, as I have outlined before), then they must be worthwhile investigating for myself.
Hitherto, in all three of the recent threads on BGs, apart from Jonathan Carr (who prefers his own 'specials' which he is lucky enough to have made to order), no-one else who has commented, has stated he preferred *any* other make than BGs.
Like myself, most of the other commentators have tried and specifically mentioned Cerafines, Silmics, Panasonics, Oscons, Nichicons, Rifas, and in my case about 20 other more 'ordinary' non-audiophile caps, and we all appear to be in accord over BGs.
I have always been the first to say that BGs are way overpriced, and a pain in the a*s* to burn in, so if there is a way of improving on these, I will welcome this readily.
Where did you get your recommended Jensens from, by the way, as I will get in touch with that supplier with a view to seeing (or rather listening!) for myself, and is there a part no. or type code for them, as I guess Jensen make several different series (a few of which I have already come across)?
Incidentally, what really irks me and caused me to spend time posting on this thread, is the large number of supposed experts, who, by their own admission, haven't even bothered to try any BGs for themselves, and yet they continue to deride them!
If any of them say they have tried BGs (like you) and *then* subsequently say they prefer another cap instead (or maybe cannot get on with BG's foibles, or whatever), then that is an entirely different matter, and this revelation may well lead to my further improving the overall sound of my system.
This is the way that some positive progress along the lines of 'sonic' improvements will be made, and not by the multitude of completely uninformed comments which are based purely on guesswork, which are counter-productive as they discourage others from trying out these components for themselves.
It takes a very determined DIYer to fly in the face of the 'average' comments, especially when the components are so ridiculously expensive, and that their burn-in is notoriuosly awkward and lengthy.
Regards,
Re: Re: black gate = money black hole ??
Bob,
First of all, I have not derided BG capacitors in any way. I have clearly stated that I have never listened to them, never laid eyes on them, so I have no opinion on their quality, and I donot state such opinion. You seem to have read somewhere that I deride BG caps. If so, I have missed it. I do admit though that I derided their tech info.
This thread was started by Peranders asking specifically on opinions related to tech info for which he put in a link. I followed that link, and found tech horesemanure [just a test to check the auto filtering]. That I stated clearly, for that is my reasoned opinion. Nobody to date has pointed out to me that I was wrong in that.
A few posts later the tech reports at the Partsxpress site were mentioned, specifically 50A and 50B I think it was. I read them, again tech horesemanure [worked!]. I thought to give them another chance to convince me and picked another at ramdom, I think it was 11. That one didn't load. I then tried 9, pure tech horesemanure. In fact, I can sum that report up in 1 scentence: "Hey, we got this Marantz preamp, we changed these caps for BG type xx and yy, now it sound better than the best out there" {End of summary]
So, I said in my post I found horesemanure.
Now you come and tell me ah, but you just picked the wrong ones, you should read all, what is it, 100 of them, THEN you will be convinced. Really?
Jan Didden
Bobken said:
Bob,
First of all, I have not derided BG capacitors in any way. I have clearly stated that I have never listened to them, never laid eyes on them, so I have no opinion on their quality, and I donot state such opinion. You seem to have read somewhere that I deride BG caps. If so, I have missed it. I do admit though that I derided their tech info.
This thread was started by Peranders asking specifically on opinions related to tech info for which he put in a link. I followed that link, and found tech horesemanure [just a test to check the auto filtering]. That I stated clearly, for that is my reasoned opinion. Nobody to date has pointed out to me that I was wrong in that.
A few posts later the tech reports at the Partsxpress site were mentioned, specifically 50A and 50B I think it was. I read them, again tech horesemanure [worked!]. I thought to give them another chance to convince me and picked another at ramdom, I think it was 11. That one didn't load. I then tried 9, pure tech horesemanure. In fact, I can sum that report up in 1 scentence: "Hey, we got this Marantz preamp, we changed these caps for BG type xx and yy, now it sound better than the best out there" {End of summary]
So, I said in my post I found horesemanure.
Now you come and tell me ah, but you just picked the wrong ones, you should read all, what is it, 100 of them, THEN you will be convinced. Really?
Jan Didden
Re: JENSEN.
Hi Frank,
Thanks for this useful info, and these are suppliers whom I was unaware of until now. (Must be one of the few in the UK!)
Those suppliers in this country which I am aware of and who keep Jensens seem to be more into the paper in oil jobs for coupling.
Just shows the benefit of this Forum, and the exchange of ideas etc., doesn't it?
These Jensen 4 terminal devices sound rather like the same design as the Dennis Morecroft 'T-network' electrolytic caps which were made by BHC at about the same time as DNM's 'slit-foils', and which were well touted by some mags and suppliers in the UK about 10 years ago.
Regrettably, although the theory etc. appeared to be sound (sic), when I tried some ('T-networks') in comparison with some Cerafines, I very much preferred the latters, and I don't see any comment about these caps nowadays.
Of course, although not being a valve afficionado, myself, I am also aware of the 'usual' 4 terminal dual caps, but these are simply two conventional electrolytics in the same can, I understand (which, accordingly, don't appear to exhibit any 'special' sonic attributes) whereas I guess these Jensens may be a little different if they are BG 'challengers'.
Maybe they are being made under license to DNM.
Regards,
fdegrove said:
Hi Frank,
Thanks for this useful info, and these are suppliers whom I was unaware of until now. (Must be one of the few in the UK!)
Those suppliers in this country which I am aware of and who keep Jensens seem to be more into the paper in oil jobs for coupling.
Just shows the benefit of this Forum, and the exchange of ideas etc., doesn't it?
These Jensen 4 terminal devices sound rather like the same design as the Dennis Morecroft 'T-network' electrolytic caps which were made by BHC at about the same time as DNM's 'slit-foils', and which were well touted by some mags and suppliers in the UK about 10 years ago.
Regrettably, although the theory etc. appeared to be sound (sic), when I tried some ('T-networks') in comparison with some Cerafines, I very much preferred the latters, and I don't see any comment about these caps nowadays.
Of course, although not being a valve afficionado, myself, I am also aware of the 'usual' 4 terminal dual caps, but these are simply two conventional electrolytics in the same can, I understand (which, accordingly, don't appear to exhibit any 'special' sonic attributes) whereas I guess these Jensens may be a little different if they are BG 'challengers'.
Maybe they are being made under license to DNM.
Regards,
T-NETWORK CAPS
Hi,
When you read the Jensen White Papers you'll notice that they don't lay any claims as to inventing anything.
In fact I do recall the four-pole Frako caps but doubt very much that these are still in production.
During one of the Hi-Fi Answers Exhibitions a demo was carried out with a Mission Cyrus amp + extra outboard PSU.
One of them was fitted with the then new DNM slitfoil caps the other PSU was a standard one.
I must say the difference was quite astonishing.
IMO a more reasonable test would have been to compare to standard electrolytic caps.
Now if someone could combine all these technological advances into a single cap?
Cheers,
Hi,
When you read the Jensen White Papers you'll notice that they don't lay any claims as to inventing anything.
In fact I do recall the four-pole Frako caps but doubt very much that these are still in production.
During one of the Hi-Fi Answers Exhibitions a demo was carried out with a Mission Cyrus amp + extra outboard PSU.
One of them was fitted with the then new DNM slitfoil caps the other PSU was a standard one.
I must say the difference was quite astonishing.
IMO a more reasonable test would have been to compare to standard electrolytic caps.
Now if someone could combine all these technological advances into a single cap?
Cheers,
Hi Frank,
I am inclined to agree with you on the subject of combining all of these technologies, and It could well lead to better sounding caps for us. (see later)
Who is going to go to that trouble, I wonder, or maybe Jensen already has?
In case any others reading this are not aware of the DNM capacitor 'innovations', there is, of course, a distinct difference between the 'slit-foil' caps and the 4 terminal 'T-networks' (TNC) types.
I can also well believe that the slit-foils you heard were a lot better than the average 'bog-standard' electrolytics, since, during my own comparisons about ten years ago, I found exactly the same, myself.
The slit foils (which in my trials actually 'sounded' considerably better than the TNCs, incidentally) are merely made like conventional electrolytics, but instead of having two large 'single' aluminium foils (rolled together like a swiss-roll!) and separated by the electrolyte, each single foil was 'slit' (or cut right through) along almost its entire length, top to bottom, in many consecutive places.
The reason for this being that this is intended to reduce the cap's inductance (with the attendant benefits of lower ESR at HF, presumably) because each electrode was thereby effectively split up into many separate smaller foils, joined together by the tiny remaning pieces of foil, each with a quite small surface area.
One of TRT's more recent plastic film caps, the Infinicap, was also constructed supposedly in a similar (but not identical) manner, partly to achieve this same 'ideal' of lower overall inductance.
In TRT's case, they effected this by attaching the entire side (edge) of the individual foils to the leads, as opposed to merely one small area of foil, and having taken one of these caps apart, I found this did seem to be so. TRT also claimed that this method of manufacture avoided many "different random-length signal paths" within these caps, which could otherwise occur, but, in reality, this is very little different from the 'extended foil' construction (mostly polystyrene) caps which have been around for at least 20 years to my knowledge.
Having said this, 'extended foils' when compared like for like (i.e. from the same makers and with the same materials used in their construction) with caps of a more conventional construction, do sound better than the 'standard' ones.
Returning to the DNMs I referred to earlier, the 'TNCs' had an entirely different method of supposedly improving their performance, and this gave rise to 4 separate terminals for just one 'single' electrolytic cap. These were: Input positive, input negative, & output positive, output negative!
Somewhere, I have a diagram of their internal arrangement (which may be like these Jensens - I haven't looked at their tech details yet) but as I am unable to scan it into my computer, unfortunately, and, as they now seem to be out of fashion, anyway, perhaps this isn't very important now.
Interestingly, bearing in mind your last comment, I recall reading that TNC technology can be combined with slit-foil technology, to "produce the ultimate audio capacitor" according to the makers, but I could never get hold of any of these supposedly "ultimate" caps to try.
Of course, it may be that due to lack of interest, these 'combined technology' caps were never put into production in the end. I would expect that BHC (Aerovox), the actual manufacturers of both of these DNM caps, would have demanded minimum quantities to be ordered to make tooling-up an economic proposition, and maybe this didn't seem viable. If anyone else knows better, perhaps they will advise us.
Lastly, I was not suggesting that the comparison I made was "a reasonable one", but I had already 'progressed' to using mostly Cerafines by that time, and as I found these to be superior (and I also found DNM's own slit-foils better than their TNCs), I didn't bother with any more of the 'four terminal' TNC DNMs.
It would have seemed to have been a retrograde step for me in my pursuit of finding the best overall sounding electrolytic capacitor, which so far (until I try the Jensens!) firmly remains Black Gates, by quite a large margin.
Regards,
I am inclined to agree with you on the subject of combining all of these technologies, and It could well lead to better sounding caps for us. (see later)
Who is going to go to that trouble, I wonder, or maybe Jensen already has?
In case any others reading this are not aware of the DNM capacitor 'innovations', there is, of course, a distinct difference between the 'slit-foil' caps and the 4 terminal 'T-networks' (TNC) types.
I can also well believe that the slit-foils you heard were a lot better than the average 'bog-standard' electrolytics, since, during my own comparisons about ten years ago, I found exactly the same, myself.
The slit foils (which in my trials actually 'sounded' considerably better than the TNCs, incidentally) are merely made like conventional electrolytics, but instead of having two large 'single' aluminium foils (rolled together like a swiss-roll!) and separated by the electrolyte, each single foil was 'slit' (or cut right through) along almost its entire length, top to bottom, in many consecutive places.
The reason for this being that this is intended to reduce the cap's inductance (with the attendant benefits of lower ESR at HF, presumably) because each electrode was thereby effectively split up into many separate smaller foils, joined together by the tiny remaning pieces of foil, each with a quite small surface area.
One of TRT's more recent plastic film caps, the Infinicap, was also constructed supposedly in a similar (but not identical) manner, partly to achieve this same 'ideal' of lower overall inductance.
In TRT's case, they effected this by attaching the entire side (edge) of the individual foils to the leads, as opposed to merely one small area of foil, and having taken one of these caps apart, I found this did seem to be so. TRT also claimed that this method of manufacture avoided many "different random-length signal paths" within these caps, which could otherwise occur, but, in reality, this is very little different from the 'extended foil' construction (mostly polystyrene) caps which have been around for at least 20 years to my knowledge.
Having said this, 'extended foils' when compared like for like (i.e. from the same makers and with the same materials used in their construction) with caps of a more conventional construction, do sound better than the 'standard' ones.
Returning to the DNMs I referred to earlier, the 'TNCs' had an entirely different method of supposedly improving their performance, and this gave rise to 4 separate terminals for just one 'single' electrolytic cap. These were: Input positive, input negative, & output positive, output negative!
Somewhere, I have a diagram of their internal arrangement (which may be like these Jensens - I haven't looked at their tech details yet) but as I am unable to scan it into my computer, unfortunately, and, as they now seem to be out of fashion, anyway, perhaps this isn't very important now.
Interestingly, bearing in mind your last comment, I recall reading that TNC technology can be combined with slit-foil technology, to "produce the ultimate audio capacitor" according to the makers, but I could never get hold of any of these supposedly "ultimate" caps to try.
Of course, it may be that due to lack of interest, these 'combined technology' caps were never put into production in the end. I would expect that BHC (Aerovox), the actual manufacturers of both of these DNM caps, would have demanded minimum quantities to be ordered to make tooling-up an economic proposition, and maybe this didn't seem viable. If anyone else knows better, perhaps they will advise us.
Lastly, I was not suggesting that the comparison I made was "a reasonable one", but I had already 'progressed' to using mostly Cerafines by that time, and as I found these to be superior (and I also found DNM's own slit-foils better than their TNCs), I didn't bother with any more of the 'four terminal' TNC DNMs.
It would have seemed to have been a retrograde step for me in my pursuit of finding the best overall sounding electrolytic capacitor, which so far (until I try the Jensens!) firmly remains Black Gates, by quite a large margin.
Regards,
Re: BLACKGATE TRAINING.
Hi Frank,
Good reference for we masochists who cannot bear these simple components which you can just solder in and go! I have often thought that such an idea would be a good thing to try, but have not yet got around to trying any 'artificial' methods of burn-in yet.
I merely leave my gear on all the time, usually, with CD set on repeat, but with the amp disconnected unless it is the amp I am working on. In that case, as I already outlined in one of these threads, I replace the speakers with 'banks' of old wirewound resistors. You can imagine how difficult it would be if I was using BGs in my speakers, but I don't anyway!
Interestingly, Vincent Siu, whose comments were used in the narrative in your reference, works (worked?) for Sonic Frontiers (Assemblage/Parts Connection) who have been responsible for some very highly regarded audio gear.
Also, his comments about burn-in times etc. seem to mirror my own experiences, about which I have elaborated upon to a boring extent on these BG threads, although I have never spoken to that guy about such matters.
Must be another one of these coincidences!!!
Yes, I was surprised about my preferences re the DNM caps, but that is what I heard, quite clearly, when a fair and direct comparison was made about 10 years ago.
I just wish someone would tell me there was (is) a 'combined' version of theirs to try, as that would be worth giving a go!
Regards,
fdegrove said:Hi,
For all those using caps that need an inordinate amount of breaking in:
RJM
Bob,
Actually it is quite funny that the slitfoils surpass the TNC caps in performance.
One would have expected the reverse to be true.
Cheers,
Hi Frank,
Good reference for we masochists who cannot bear these simple components which you can just solder in and go! I have often thought that such an idea would be a good thing to try, but have not yet got around to trying any 'artificial' methods of burn-in yet.
I merely leave my gear on all the time, usually, with CD set on repeat, but with the amp disconnected unless it is the amp I am working on. In that case, as I already outlined in one of these threads, I replace the speakers with 'banks' of old wirewound resistors. You can imagine how difficult it would be if I was using BGs in my speakers, but I don't anyway!
Interestingly, Vincent Siu, whose comments were used in the narrative in your reference, works (worked?) for Sonic Frontiers (Assemblage/Parts Connection) who have been responsible for some very highly regarded audio gear.
Also, his comments about burn-in times etc. seem to mirror my own experiences, about which I have elaborated upon to a boring extent on these BG threads, although I have never spoken to that guy about such matters.
Must be another one of these coincidences!!!
Yes, I was surprised about my preferences re the DNM caps, but that is what I heard, quite clearly, when a fair and direct comparison was made about 10 years ago.
I just wish someone would tell me there was (is) a 'combined' version of theirs to try, as that would be worth giving a go!
Regards,
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.