hi Fdegrove:
"Application of a 1000uF elco for Cc showed a clear advantage in SRPP. The treble becomes more sophisticated, the placement of sound sources becomes more precise both in width and depth. When it is applied in case of the anode follower, it even gets more involvement, and also adds to treble and precision. We tried several brands, and Philips elcos gave very good results."
it is the second of the four points at the bottom of the first link.
your replies are no problem. I haven't been working with electronics for long and make a lot of mistakes. So please correct me when I'm wrong.
"Application of a 1000uF elco for Cc showed a clear advantage in SRPP. The treble becomes more sophisticated, the placement of sound sources becomes more precise both in width and depth. When it is applied in case of the anode follower, it even gets more involvement, and also adds to treble and precision. We tried several brands, and Philips elcos gave very good results."
it is the second of the four points at the bottom of the first link.
your replies are no problem. I haven't been working with electronics for long and make a lot of mistakes. So please correct me when I'm wrong.
Hi,
That's a mere subjective assessment within the defined context of their system.
My own assessment of similar tests have shown that a bigger cap, bigger than strictly needed, slows down transient response audibly and smears the audio signal.
This is especially obvious on phono preamps having much higher gain.
No cap is perfect so use the best you can and as little as possible.
I still have to find a cap that actually "improves" anything by passing the audio signal through it...........
A bigger cap than calculated for cathode bypass duty may at best improve low frequency response but if that cap starts to "improve" treble response, as they seem to claim, then I suspect something is not quite right or they're comparing apples to oranges.
IOW they used a cap with a better HF response and it had nothing to do with the value of that cap per se.
Cheers, 😉
That's a mere subjective assessment within the defined context of their system.
My own assessment of similar tests have shown that a bigger cap, bigger than strictly needed, slows down transient response audibly and smears the audio signal.
This is especially obvious on phono preamps having much higher gain.
No cap is perfect so use the best you can and as little as possible.
I still have to find a cap that actually "improves" anything by passing the audio signal through it...........
A bigger cap than calculated for cathode bypass duty may at best improve low frequency response but if that cap starts to "improve" treble response, as they seem to claim, then I suspect something is not quite right or they're comparing apples to oranges.
IOW they used a cap with a better HF response and it had nothing to do with the value of that cap per se.
Cheers, 😉
Frank,
I am not quite with you here (perhaps it is just the new year - and NO, I did not partake of the liquid of the vine)
You say
I agree that something appears to be amiss when a bypass capacitor as meant here improves the high frequency response - but then what do you mean by "slowing down transients". Is that not also in the high frequency domain?
I have checked for signal over cathode bypass caps in the past because of qualitative statements that electrolytics become inductive and do all sorts of things to high frequencies, and cannot truhfully say that I have found anything visible there to cause me concern, even with square waves. Have I just been fortunate in using "good" capacitors, or does one have a degree of urban legend here? As you said, listening tests are subjective. I have the greatest respect for individual experiences, but difference of opinions as well as the result of blind tests make it difficult for a designer to come to a universal conclusion wrt such tests.
Regards.
I am not quite with you here (perhaps it is just the new year - and NO, I did not partake of the liquid of the vine)
You say
fdegrove said:
I agree that something appears to be amiss when a bypass capacitor as meant here improves the high frequency response - but then what do you mean by "slowing down transients". Is that not also in the high frequency domain?
I have checked for signal over cathode bypass caps in the past because of qualitative statements that electrolytics become inductive and do all sorts of things to high frequencies, and cannot truhfully say that I have found anything visible there to cause me concern, even with square waves. Have I just been fortunate in using "good" capacitors, or does one have a degree of urban legend here? As you said, listening tests are subjective. I have the greatest respect for individual experiences, but difference of opinions as well as the result of blind tests make it difficult for a designer to come to a universal conclusion wrt such tests.
Regards.
Hi,
Johan,
Their claim goes:
Putting a bigger cap in, in casu 1000 microF iso the calculated 50 microF value improves highs. That would include perceived transient response.
My experience:
Rather the opposite is true as the increased value of the cap alone will broaden the LF response giving a subjective feeling of slowed down, bass heavy sound.
This can be improved by the use of better quality caps but usually, all else kept equal, a bigger cap means more of the same bad things.
That's all I wanted to point out.
Hence my surprise to read the opposite of what I'd expect to read.
Cheers, 😉
Johan,
Their claim goes:
Putting a bigger cap in, in casu 1000 microF iso the calculated 50 microF value improves highs. That would include perceived transient response.
My experience:
Rather the opposite is true as the increased value of the cap alone will broaden the LF response giving a subjective feeling of slowed down, bass heavy sound.
This can be improved by the use of better quality caps but usually, all else kept equal, a bigger cap means more of the same bad things.
That's all I wanted to point out.
Hence my surprise to read the opposite of what I'd expect to read.
Cheers, 😉
Frank,
No fine - thanks for reply. I have largely misread your reference to transient response, in that I never had that experience. But with one very large capacitor, yes - I should have seen that implication. I have never used that large a single cap but know (i.e. have read) that all is not well that way. I have on occasion used several smaller caps in parallel, also because it is simply easier to accomodate on a p.c., which could be the reason for my not having experienced problems. But in an analysis published a few years ago in Electronics World by Cyril Bateman there appeared to be substantial differences between different makes. Perhaps I was just fortunate.
Thanks again,
Johan
No fine - thanks for reply. I have largely misread your reference to transient response, in that I never had that experience. But with one very large capacitor, yes - I should have seen that implication. I have never used that large a single cap but know (i.e. have read) that all is not well that way. I have on occasion used several smaller caps in parallel, also because it is simply easier to accomodate on a p.c., which could be the reason for my not having experienced problems. But in an analysis published a few years ago in Electronics World by Cyril Bateman there appeared to be substantial differences between different makes. Perhaps I was just fortunate.
Thanks again,
Johan
The whole point behind the super E cap configuration claims on the Jelco website is that this back to back parallel connection cancels the ESL of the capacitors.
Obviously that can't be the case, at best it would effectively halve it. (Two inductors in parallel.) In order to actually cancel the inductance the ESL of both capacitors would have to couple 100% to each other in the magnetic domain and given that they are separate components that is impossible.
All of the BG capacitors I have used seemed to be significantly better in key measurable parameters like linearity than many of the cheaper ones they were replacing. I believe they do actually sound better in a lot of instances. It is a shame that such outrageous marketing claims are made for them, some solid engineering went into their design. The marketing approach is reminiscent of the claims made for patent medicines over a century ago.. 😀
Frank made an interesting comment about large bypass capacitors and I have observed similar behavior with large capacitors. I was able to observe ringing in some waveforms that was clearly due to resonances in the capacitor itself. (Perhaps both mechanical at high current levels and electrical otherwise.)
As an aside some metal film resistors "umm" generate harmonic distortion that is measurable as a consequence of the nature of their end terminations as well.. Not exactly very linear behavior from a "linear" component. (Old Mepco Electra RN60 MF )
No passive component is totally linear, some are just a lot better than others, which I guess is one of the points I am making. No capacitor in many instances is the best capacitor..
Obviously that can't be the case, at best it would effectively halve it. (Two inductors in parallel.) In order to actually cancel the inductance the ESL of both capacitors would have to couple 100% to each other in the magnetic domain and given that they are separate components that is impossible.
All of the BG capacitors I have used seemed to be significantly better in key measurable parameters like linearity than many of the cheaper ones they were replacing. I believe they do actually sound better in a lot of instances. It is a shame that such outrageous marketing claims are made for them, some solid engineering went into their design. The marketing approach is reminiscent of the claims made for patent medicines over a century ago.. 😀
Frank made an interesting comment about large bypass capacitors and I have observed similar behavior with large capacitors. I was able to observe ringing in some waveforms that was clearly due to resonances in the capacitor itself. (Perhaps both mechanical at high current levels and electrical otherwise.)
As an aside some metal film resistors "umm" generate harmonic distortion that is measurable as a consequence of the nature of their end terminations as well.. Not exactly very linear behavior from a "linear" component. (Old Mepco Electra RN60 MF )
No passive component is totally linear, some are just a lot better than others, which I guess is one of the points I am making. No capacitor in many instances is the best capacitor..
kevinkr said:
Kevinkr,
One must resist the temptation to reply to everything, but this is a particular sore point of mine. You are so correct. I have often said that the outrageous claims efforts at technical description by manufacturers of how their own products work or by subjective reviewers, have sometimes been the deciding reason why I did not invest in them. I already mentioned a series of articles on capacitors by Cyril Bateman in Electronics World a few years ago, where he also found that BGs were slightly better than the best of the rest, but that the extra expense was not merited. But that not to dissuade - if folks can afford them.....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.