Also, when across + to - the separation is reduced towards mono. What sonic affect that has? Also, the driver/source may not like lowered Z at its output and increase hf distortion. There are many things to measure and maybe hear.
What freqs are affected?
THx-RNMarsh
What freqs are affected?
THx-RNMarsh
I just love these threads. All the comments from those that actually know something about science get dismissed as if they are coming from ignorant schoolyard bullies.
Hey, I know, let's have a vote!
A) The behaviour of the capacitor in this circuit can be explained with existing knowledge.
B) The behaviour of the capacitor in this circuit is beyond our understanding.
C) The question is coming from someone blinded by science and is therefore irrelevant.
---------
Any more options to consider?
Hey, I know, let's have a vote!
A) The behaviour of the capacitor in this circuit can be explained with existing knowledge.
B) The behaviour of the capacitor in this circuit is beyond our understanding.
C) The question is coming from someone blinded by science and is therefore irrelevant.
---------
Any more options to consider?
Last edited:
disciple of Joe's caps
religion or science, they're all cults, pick the one that appeals to your sensibilities.
I picked science IDK why, maybe it's less based on 'The Leader'.
the problem comes from trying to convert others to your belief system. Coris what are you saying, I gather there is not much foundation to your message, so I reckon yer selling the cult of personality. do we have to ask Joe how this works on different hardware platforms. or we just swap parts willy nilly?
religion or science, they're all cults, pick the one that appeals to your sensibilities.
I picked science IDK why, maybe it's less based on 'The Leader'.
the problem comes from trying to convert others to your belief system. Coris what are you saying, I gather there is not much foundation to your message, so I reckon yer selling the cult of personality. do we have to ask Joe how this works on different hardware platforms. or we just swap parts willy nilly?
Last edited:
Almost like this it was my first interpretation of this approach, before trying it. I just thought, well a quite large capacity over these differential outputs (per channel), in the signal path it will only mess the differential way of working. It will for sure lower the frequency response of the circuits, and finally it will only worse everything. But I may just give it a try as it will for sure no harm anything. It may be for sure something stupid to use a so large capacity as around 1µ in this place without seriously damage the signal integrity. I started with 100p cap. Nothing wrong happened, but a slightly better way to perceive the sound. I have increased the value, and I was very surprised that noting wrong happened at all, but only opposite: the soundscene become larger, the sound elements became more precise into the soundscene, more space back and forth, more smoothness in the reproduced sounds, more pleasant to listen it. It was just in fully opposition to what I had in my mind as consequences when implementing such approach. What is going on here? How a quite large capacity placed in the signal path, it can improve instead to worse everything?
I have measured the HF noise on outputs with this cap on. No any change. The same amount of HF. I concluded that the only effect of this cap is in the audio range, in a quite sophisticated way, affecting the soundscene quality, and not at all the quality of the overall audio signal. In my interpretation, this cap placed so it may increase the phase accuracy off the reproduced audio signals. It is well known that the human perception of the sounds in the environment (soundscene), is based on detection of the phase differences for the sounds coming to the ears. This mechanism it make possible the location of the sounds around. If the location of the instruments in a soundscene become more precise, with this cap in place, then it may happen an improvement in this area... But how to measure such things? What to measure in a such complex signal environment? What to look for?
Later on, getting a little bit more informations about this approach, I noticed that this way of filtering it is nothing new at all. It was used before, quite long time ago in the design of some audio devices. The caps placed exactly in the same places. But why it is not further used if it improve so the outputted sound?
Well, I done my own experiments and I found the right way to do it, as the right components to implement it in my mods of Oppo players.
I found out that this trick it works not only with ES9018, but with PCM1792 DAC too. And it works also in a quite different setup, on a complete different device.
Well, if it works, then just use it.
I see here that someone are still thinking that my support for this approach, it is in fact a support to Joe in his attempt to bind this effect to his name.
In my opinion, Joe`s merit in all this is that he brought it up the information of this (used before concept), to those who did not known about it. This it was happened first in the Oppo 105 thread here.
He made this connection between the existing information about this approach and the use of it to improve an audio device (the DAC in the Oppo players). It was nobody else who did this (as I can know so far). As usually, if someone find a useful information somewhere, it use it that for his own benefit, and do not share it. Joe shared the information, and even got a lot of "troubles" because that. I appreciate this as not fair at all. In my opinion he deserve to call this cap as Joe`s cap in this limited area of using it in improving these devices, he, myself and maybe other are working with.
I`m thinking that mentioning this hereby it will help one or another to not accuse me any more for cult of personality, understanding better what is all about in this case...
Last edited:
As I tried to explain in the other thread, the cap may often be placed at a point in the circuit where the impedance is very small and inductive. This means that the added capacitance is not 'large' at all: 100pF is large when added across a VHF tuned circuit, while 0.1uF is small when placed across an audio virtual ground. The result will be a low Q HF resonance. This could be audible. If you are pushing an idea you could at least take the time to understand the circuit environment in which it is supposed to be used.Coris said:
I thought he was minded to patent this? Maybe my memory is faulty. Perhaps in the US you can patent adding a capacitor to a circuit without any coherent explanation of what it does or how it works. I thought the suggestion to call it "Joe's cap" was quite funny.
Thanks for your explanation. Well, of course 100pF is not large at all, but the well working value (at least for me) is in the µF range...
BTW, I`m not pushing any idea here, as anywhere. I only support using this approach as it improve the device quality. That`s all.
I can hardly see that something which it was used before it can be patented... But I do not know well the rules in this area. Maybe...
At least, my real suggestion in this respect is to we focus on the approach itself, but not on the additional aspects...
BTW, I`m not pushing any idea here, as anywhere. I only support using this approach as it improve the device quality. That`s all.
I can hardly see that something which it was used before it can be patented... But I do not know well the rules in this area. Maybe...
At least, my real suggestion in this respect is to we focus on the approach itself, but not on the additional aspects...
Last edited:
Yes, in some cases. At times any explanation gets by the examiners, my favorite US 6362718. I leave it to the reader to decide if the explanation is coherent.
Coris ...
Can you please show us picture of silence and 1khz -10db signal after 1uf cap and after first i/v stage vs no capacitor on es9018
After output buffer i mesured no difference but in first 2 the result was suprising.
I can*t do any experiments with es9018 because i sold all dacs with that ic. I have only es9023 and ak4490 at the moment. Maybe i will try with ak4490 in next weeks.
I mesured something like this when measured noise
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/249418-dac-filtering-rasmussen-effect-54.html
When i mesured 1khz output, before first opamp the noise was bigger than signal and couldn*t be measured, when i add 2pcs of 3.3ohm resistor and 0.82uF cap suddenly 1khz wave present almost clean.
Can you please show us picture of silence and 1khz -10db signal after 1uf cap and after first i/v stage vs no capacitor on es9018
After output buffer i mesured no difference but in first 2 the result was suprising.
I can*t do any experiments with es9018 because i sold all dacs with that ic. I have only es9023 and ak4490 at the moment. Maybe i will try with ak4490 in next weeks.
I mesured something like this when measured noise
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/249418-dac-filtering-rasmussen-effect-54.html
When i mesured 1khz output, before first opamp the noise was bigger than signal and couldn*t be measured, when i add 2pcs of 3.3ohm resistor and 0.82uF cap suddenly 1khz wave present almost clean.
The name of this thread is "The Joe's Capacitor" So the name of this thread is in FACT AN implied attack.
...I feel the need to speak out because many times people are intimidated into being silent because of bully's like you claiming I reject science...no I reject your strict interpretation...which amounts to DOGMA ...and has nothing to do with science!
I reject that you think you CANNOT BE WRONG!!!! You have been proven wrong for 6000 years! Humans have been wrong our entire history!
I don't know what this thread is even about anymore, but I'm a big fan of Robert Crumb, who has a rather large 78 collection.
I can prove fundamental measurements on most things to 5 or 6 places, and those measurements can be replicated by anybody with suitable equipment to do so. I cannot prove how anything sounds, so those discussions can go on forever. The more interesting question concerns nearly identical signals, so all that's left are biases. It seems pretty rare that anybody compares something before and after mods, and declares that no difference can be heard. IMO, the case of mods being an improvement far outnumbers the case of them being detrimental.
I just made some amp mods myself and am quite positive they're an improvement, but I also know that in a proper DBT there's a very good chance I couldn't tell the difference. Everybody has biases and for some reason few want to admit it.
Oh, and lighten up Francis! (Stripes, '81)
I can prove fundamental measurements on most things to 5 or 6 places, and those measurements can be replicated by anybody with suitable equipment to do so. I cannot prove how anything sounds, so those discussions can go on forever. The more interesting question concerns nearly identical signals, so all that's left are biases. It seems pretty rare that anybody compares something before and after mods, and declares that no difference can be heard. IMO, the case of mods being an improvement far outnumbers the case of them being detrimental.
I just made some amp mods myself and am quite positive they're an improvement, but I also know that in a proper DBT there's a very good chance I couldn't tell the difference. Everybody has biases and for some reason few want to admit it.
Oh, and lighten up Francis! (Stripes, '81)
Last edited:
yup that's what I figured this was all about. maybe you forgot .. I pointed out in the beginning of this thread, I and others have done this, maybe just not on audio gear. I also just now did a simple search for a differential DAC and found at least one app note that shows it across the I/V converters outputs.
If I find a deserted island and I plant a flag on it does it make it InfiniaLand , no I have to find out and see if anyone was there before me.
Clausen, yes the name of the thread is unfortunate. But I'm sure it was not Coris' intent for it to be an attack.I DO NOT believe that the science guys are being bullys.
I also put it to you that they have at no point said that they cannot be wrong!
ALL that has been said is that the effects should be able to be explained by standard circuit theory, any claims that it cannot be explained by standard circuit theory they quite reasonably ask for theory and experiments to back it up. There is nothing bullying or unreasonable about that.
Some people accept that there is a phenomenon called psycho acoustics, this can affect peoples perceptions. It is not unreasonable to assume at times when something seems to be magic that psycho acoustics may be at play. It is also not unreasonable that the skeptics do not want to spend the time to do the experiments to prove or disprove this is the case.
The fact that the previous thread was closed, and another opened is actually against the rules and as a result I will now close this thread, as any further discussion along these lines is pointless.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.