It would be a lot of work for me, now. Opening one of my audio gear, changing film caps to electrolytics, and back again, recording, editing, uploading etc.
For what kind of benefit ?
I first noticed a difference between electrolytic and film caps in a special situation.
Why I was in need to recap a mixing desk (huge work), I replaced, in each place where it was possible, electrolytics for film caps. Not for any sound quality purpose, at this time, but for MTBF reasons. The improvement of quality was obvious to a lot of people used to work on the desk. Several sound engineers, not aware of this change, asked-us what was changed in the studio.
This said, I am not so much aware of big quality differences between various films caps technologies.
I have to precise the conditions. No DC. Caps in the signal paths, in a mixing desk, are used to avoid any "click" that could occurs when switching a circuit in (lot of ;-), due to little residual offsets. No need of any of those in a fixed configuration.
Last edited:
We have to distinguish linear (e.g. BW manipulation) and nonlinear distortion in audio band..Linear distortion will be caused even with ideal capacitor...
Yes, agreed so far. However, the effect of DA can be modeled as an RC ladder network inside a physical capacitor. Capacitors vary in the particular RC ladder model parameters that best characterize them. How are you measuring the effects of that model for different capacitors, was my question?
The reason I ask is that enough people report hearing audible effects from capacitors that it seems most likely they are hearing something. If we can agree measurements do not show it be nonlinear distortion, then we have to measure the linear distortion and try to correlate that with listening reports and listening tests. We are not properly equipped to measure what some people are hearing, it seems. Jumping to a conclusion that they are all crazy simply because we don't have a good way to measure small differences in linear distortion is foolishness, IMHO. It is certainly not scientific.
Last edited:
Oh.......so there are things that can be heard but not measured!
Answers a lot of those ‘maybe there’s things that can be heard but not properly measured’
A bit different from ‘if it can be heard it can be measured’
Maybe the difference is the objective crowd can’t hear the differences due to measurement bias (if it’s not different in the measurement therefore differences do not exist) it is only in the subjective recess of the imagination?
So confusing
Answers a lot of those ‘maybe there’s things that can be heard but not properly measured’
A bit different from ‘if it can be heard it can be measured’
Maybe the difference is the objective crowd can’t hear the differences due to measurement bias (if it’s not different in the measurement therefore differences do not exist) it is only in the subjective recess of the imagination?
So confusing
Last edited:
No. Just because we don't measure it now doesn't mean it can be done.
It's a possibility since we all hear with our eyes first
Especially those who look at ASR before listening?
-----------------------
Okay, said enough on this topic. Bye for now
I’m assuming that should have been can’t ?
And I never meant that the differences are not ever measureable, just overlooked as unimportant or too difficult, or doesn’t matter to most.....etc.
Last edited:
Unproven - it was a subjective opinion that was expressed!
Only if you mix up subjective likes with "better" or "correct".
Exactly. And Correct is by your definition not subjective.
Better is usually subjective - Rock is better than Pop might be how person A thinks, person B may think the opposite.
Neither is correct - as there is no "correct" for subjective responses.
Matt, One could probably get closer than your letting on with enough effort.
I don’t see the the disparity you do if a quality recording is used .......i am certainly not the only one who can identify a clean, well recorded take just by listening to it.
Correct to the source gpauk......there is but one correct and it is not subjective. Whether one prefers it or not is irrelevant.
I don’t see the the disparity you do if a quality recording is used .......i am certainly not the only one who can identify a clean, well recorded take just by listening to it.
Correct to the source gpauk......there is but one correct and it is not subjective. Whether one prefers it or not is irrelevant.
Last edited:
Agreed for mixing/mastering near field is best,
But more than some people are stuck with their listening room the way it is, making that room sound ‘live’ @ LP is the ticket.
Edit......and actually not a bad idea to listen to the same recording in a studio monitor configuration before tackling the room. Good job!
But more than some people are stuck with their listening room the way it is, making that room sound ‘live’ @ LP is the ticket.
Edit......and actually not a bad idea to listen to the same recording in a studio monitor configuration before tackling the room. Good job!
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.