Don't know about the Bateman's article, but "Picking capacitors" had the advantage, at the time it was published, to enlight a lot of people, including me, about the capacitance's problems in audio.
Enough to inspire me to undertake measurements and listening sessions on the same subject. Leading to the same conclusions.
I believe-you when you understate you should had been more "scientific" if you had done this work, but, unfortunately, I had not read anything about this subject under your name at this time or after. Self published or not.
Last edited:
Well, I screwed the pooch on my measurements.
I found that if I increased the capacitance over 1uF I would get the IM distortion. Something about my test set I suspect.
So, I need to go do some reading and try to approach this in a more consistent manner.
I've loaded a bunch of pdfs to my amazon fire, so I'm off to take a shower and read till I fall asleep. Thanks for all the recommendations for articles.
Night all, and thanks for the input.
I found that if I increased the capacitance over 1uF I would get the IM distortion. Something about my test set I suspect.
So, I need to go do some reading and try to approach this in a more consistent manner.
I've loaded a bunch of pdfs to my amazon fire, so I'm off to take a shower and read till I fall asleep. Thanks for all the recommendations for articles.
Night all, and thanks for the input.
I never found him rude. I have no doubt you found him annoying.
If you never learned anything from him, then you weren't paying attention. He is an accomplished scientist with much to offer.FWIW I read "Picking Capacitors" when it was published in Audio magazine, which I read every month back then. It was a game changer, very informative, challenged received wisdom, and was based on some serious research. It was not rigorous nor peer reviewed. It spawned an industry that mischaracterized your findings and preyed on the gullible. Not your fault, but you also never really challenged the snake oil charlatans that used your work to justify their BS. Or maybe you did, but I never saw it. Surely even you would recognize the disingenuousness of the beeswax and unobtanium capacitor purveyors.
Now SY would actually measure (as you and Walt did) and dismiss the more ridiculous claims (about caps, wires, digital, Bybees, etc). I know you and he wound up on different sides of many arguments. When he makes a claim he backs it up with repeatable data, and he expects the same from those who challenge his findings. That can be really annoying, but it's called science.
I think, or hope, that you know that I hold you in very high regard, and I have admired your contributions to the audio state of the art over many decades. I also admire SY's contributions; he wasn't just hanging out here bothering people, he applied science, measured, designed, listened, measured again, published his work, etc. If half the folks here did half as much, we would have a richer forum.
Nezbleu -- I agree about most everything you said, above. You have to realize that I was not working in audio and had little contact with those who were/are - except those who were more interested in T&M, design and how and why's. Not consumer markets.
I never then nor now feel what others do with the information that is not related to me - be some how my responsibility - like selling over priced capacitors. Not my concern about listener only audiophiles who dont know BS when they hear it. I would assume the industry would police itself.
As for SY - I came to DIYaudio to help people who wanted to build my minimalist headphone amp. But got jumped/blind-sided on the snake oil capacitor sales people selling remarked caps at high prices to unsuspecting audiophiles. WTF ? So, I dont know SY but only thru his position towards me. But, he isnt alone. Somehow, I get blamed for all these other people selling over priced caps and it is My fault? Amazing. More stupid thinking from otherwise good technical minds.
THx-RNMarsh
I never then nor now feel what others do with the information that is not related to me - be some how my responsibility - like selling over priced capacitors. Not my concern about listener only audiophiles who dont know BS when they hear it. I would assume the industry would police itself.
As for SY - I came to DIYaudio to help people who wanted to build my minimalist headphone amp. But got jumped/blind-sided on the snake oil capacitor sales people selling remarked caps at high prices to unsuspecting audiophiles. WTF ? So, I dont know SY but only thru his position towards me. But, he isnt alone. Somehow, I get blamed for all these other people selling over priced caps and it is My fault? Amazing. More stupid thinking from otherwise good technical minds.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Hi Richard,
I think most appreciate the knowledge you bring. There will always be a peanut gallery of mostly noise. If you can let that slide off your back.
As for SY, you two would probably get along in person. I also think the two of you would respect each other. I'm saying this from knowing SY and going off exchanges between you and I. Could be wrong, but I don't think so. SY is very direct and I can see this coming off as rude. That would probably be the biggest issue to get beyond.
I do miss SY around here.
-Chris
I think most appreciate the knowledge you bring. There will always be a peanut gallery of mostly noise. If you can let that slide off your back.
As for SY, you two would probably get along in person. I also think the two of you would respect each other. I'm saying this from knowing SY and going off exchanges between you and I. Could be wrong, but I don't think so. SY is very direct and I can see this coming off as rude. That would probably be the biggest issue to get beyond.
I do miss SY around here.
-Chris
Hi John,
How about C201? That looks like a nasty one.
Not having seen one of these on my bench, I can't say much about the original capacitors, but what you have done is what I would do if forced to try and upgrade one of these. At $100, trying to improve it is silly unless it belongs to you. Also, the gain stages shown are not very good for thermal stability. I wouldn't be too surprised to see huge variations in operating point. It has other problems that make it a poor candidate for improvement.
At this moment, on my bench is a Marantz 2325 that is undergoing a complete series of improvements. Capacitors are one part of the job. I'm matching transistors, making some minor circuit changes and aligning the tuner, among other things. It will come off the bench an entirely new piece of equipment. The changes result in both audible and measured improvements.
I can do better with other models, but this will sound pretty darned good, and make someone extremely happy. There is no point in doing this otherwise.
-Chris
How about C201? That looks like a nasty one.
Not having seen one of these on my bench, I can't say much about the original capacitors, but what you have done is what I would do if forced to try and upgrade one of these. At $100, trying to improve it is silly unless it belongs to you. Also, the gain stages shown are not very good for thermal stability. I wouldn't be too surprised to see huge variations in operating point. It has other problems that make it a poor candidate for improvement.
At this moment, on my bench is a Marantz 2325 that is undergoing a complete series of improvements. Capacitors are one part of the job. I'm matching transistors, making some minor circuit changes and aligning the tuner, among other things. It will come off the bench an entirely new piece of equipment. The changes result in both audible and measured improvements.
I can do better with other models, but this will sound pretty darned good, and make someone extremely happy. There is no point in doing this otherwise.
-Chris
Hi John,
If that's all the choice there is out there, time to dig up something old and well worth upgrading. I was lucky enough to get a Revox B-261. It was sold to me cheap because someone had done a lousy alignment on it. I had to run through the alignment twice to get everything back where it should be. Of course once that was done, I just had to play with the audio section. Just did a Marantz 125 and 150 recently. They both turned out well and have good sound quality. The 150 is mine and needed a complete rebuild, and the "good" scope tube required replacement as it was too dim to read. The replacement tube cost me $200 after shipping. Anyway, it works well now and I'm ready to go play with that audio section.
You know, if a tuner will bring every station available, it isn't worth a hoot if it doesn't sound good. Otherwise, you won't use it. What's the point then? John, you know what you're doing with audio. Go get a good older tuner (Revox would be excellent) and have it aligned. Once you get it back, have at it and improve the audio. That will include replacing an op amp (sorry). Some McIntosh tuners are quite good as well. They always need the audio improved. Just make sure you use a good McIntosh approved technician. Locally there is a real destructive "technician" who is authorized by McIntosh (I am too). But this clown has destroyed so much product ... I've had to bring a few units back to life after he's been in there. I have one tuner in the dead pile because he took the cores from the MPX section. All of them! So check with McIntosh before letting anyone touch a McIntosh product.
There are other good tuners, and I think you should concentrate on ones that can sound good. The RF stuff can be set up, but if the audio is a lost cause, there isn't any reason to consider that particular tuner.
-Chris
If that's all the choice there is out there, time to dig up something old and well worth upgrading. I was lucky enough to get a Revox B-261. It was sold to me cheap because someone had done a lousy alignment on it. I had to run through the alignment twice to get everything back where it should be. Of course once that was done, I just had to play with the audio section. Just did a Marantz 125 and 150 recently. They both turned out well and have good sound quality. The 150 is mine and needed a complete rebuild, and the "good" scope tube required replacement as it was too dim to read. The replacement tube cost me $200 after shipping. Anyway, it works well now and I'm ready to go play with that audio section.
You know, if a tuner will bring every station available, it isn't worth a hoot if it doesn't sound good. Otherwise, you won't use it. What's the point then? John, you know what you're doing with audio. Go get a good older tuner (Revox would be excellent) and have it aligned. Once you get it back, have at it and improve the audio. That will include replacing an op amp (sorry). Some McIntosh tuners are quite good as well. They always need the audio improved. Just make sure you use a good McIntosh approved technician. Locally there is a real destructive "technician" who is authorized by McIntosh (I am too). But this clown has destroyed so much product ... I've had to bring a few units back to life after he's been in there. I have one tuner in the dead pile because he took the cores from the MPX section. All of them! So check with McIntosh before letting anyone touch a McIntosh product.
There are other good tuners, and I think you should concentrate on ones that can sound good. The RF stuff can be set up, but if the audio is a lost cause, there isn't any reason to consider that particular tuner.
-Chris
which model is it? HD Radio? Really small. I have that one also. Super RF specs. I can only use the Kenwood and Sony HD because the others cant bring in distant stations.
I would love to get my hands on a good Revox FM tuner, though.
-RM
Last edited:
Despite being a bit overly self-serving there at the end I enjoyed it.... But hard to hear a guy talk about disingenuous marketing while in the very process of marketing himself. “Trust no one, but me!” Heard that before.
Unfortunately he seems credible enough to assume that it’s evidence of yet another giant ridiculous money grab circus.
But I guess what isn’t these days? To me it’s really sad how pervasive it is in modern culture.
I think I’ll stick with my “low resolution” LPs and 320kbps rips. On the plus side I’ve only had to buy them once! Screw you late stage capitalism!
Also, I just can’t accept anyone taking jabs at Neil, Young, even if the Pono player was a bit disappointing. At least he tried.
These PMLCAP's look very interesting, are there here people that have/are used/using them, and are there any (sound)quality reports for/of them?
I wish he took his idea of source material back one more step, if you know what I mean (I don't find his catalog compelling). This is typical of audiophile labels these days.
Pretty light jab. I admit the joke about Neil and his buddies driving around in their '72 caddie hear the difference was not necessary. But doesn't this underscore the controversy we have here, professional engineers whose business is making recordings don't hear any difference?
Hasn't it ALWAYS been the case that audiophile labels rarely produce stuff you would actually want to listen to. Crystal Clear being a prime example from the 70s! There are a few classical labels that put in the effort, but mostly its mixed for the target market.
The Pono concept collapsed due to a number of factors including spotty marketing, and they didn't use PayPal and insisted on CC entry for every purchase, making buying from them clumsy. Also the final straw was Apple Corp. purchasing Omniphone, the company Pono was licensing the remasters from who then discontinued the license.
I am a confirmed portable music aficionado and was on the Pono Player beta team and I have to say, having used Apple, Sony, A&K and the Pono Player that the Pono has a truly great sounding DAC. Say what you will about him and his wooden wire trestles, Charles and crew did a fine job with that design. Not that the others do not, and not having had all of them at the same time I recuse myself from actually comparing them. The closest I came to doing that is comparing each when I had it to my reference Auralic Vega. The most disappointing thing about the Pono Player is the battery life, it's charge circuitry just sucks.
At the risk of thread drift I will repeat the best thing about HD remasters can be (in some cases) a really great new master from the original sources. Of the hundreds I have listened to, there are quite a few which stand out as worthwhile purchases over their poorly-transferred CD predecessors.
The question of whether mastering engineers (of which I was one) can hear the difference between CD and HD is a moot point to me. It depends strongly on the dynamic range of the recording itself and HD is a bigger bucket. There are so many other factors which go into a great sounding piece of end-user media, the actual sampling rate or number of bits are just two. I will say mastering for CD does require one to carefully watch dynamic range and level setting, as digital clipping sounds like crap, and depending on the dither used the noise floor is not necessarily euphonic.
With some highly dynamic sources, when all goes well on an HD master the result can potentially be closer to the original multi-track playback. At that point, will a 16 bit 44.1 K transfer sound worse than a 24 bit 96k transfer? Peak limited or gain ridden? For what kind of music? Transferred for similar average or peak levels?...questions for those who are hung up on it. I will continue getting the HD transfers where the difference with the older format merits it and not worry. Storage is cheap.
Speaking to specifics, has anyone had the opportunity to hear Giles Martin's CD (no HD release yet) remaster of that obscure album Sgt. Peppers? Not that anyone needs to hear it again, but I recently had an opportunity to compare the previous best George Martin remastered FLAC version to the new Giles Martin CD, and I hope Giles remasters a lot more in the future. It is a truly amazingly 3D mix with phenomenal separation and clarity of all instruments individually tracked compared to previous attempts by his father, of which I have many (yeah, Beatles freak too...). Highly recommended!
Cheers!
Howie
- Status
- Not open for further replies.