Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Bipolar Caps

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
November 29, 2004 3:00:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hey,

I'm taking on my first recap project, and I've noticed several
bi-polar caps in the circuit. I was planning on using Panasonic FCs
for the whole thing, but it appears as though there aren't any in the
FC series, any suggestions on types I could use, or are they
generally less important (i.e. are bi-polar caps generally not used in
the audio signal path?) Thanks

/John\

More about : bipolar caps

Anonymous
November 29, 2004 6:56:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Vishay Roederstein EKSU-Series.

Samuel
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 11:18:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

caligulashorse@hotmail.com (Jack) wrote in message news:<c34b05f.0411290000.263de5fb@posting.google.com>...
> Hey,
>
> I'm taking on my first recap project, and I've noticed several
> bi-polar caps in the circuit. I was planning on using Panasonic FCs
> for the whole thing, but it appears as though there aren't any in the
> FC series, any suggestions on types I could use, or are they
> generally less important (i.e. are bi-polar caps generally not used in
> the audio signal path?) Thanks
>
> /John\

You can deal with this a couple of ways. If you use polarized
electrolytics, first use a VOM to determine the side of the cap which
has the greater voltage. Rotate pots and push switches to determine if
the voltage reverses. If not, place the polarized caps with the + pin
to the + voltage. If the dc shifts excessivly you can "create" a
polarized cap by tying the two + input pins of the caps together to
make a non polarized electrolytic. You can further experiment by
adding a polarization voltage to the juction of the + pins.
I would expect using a pair of Panasonic FM series or Rubycon Z
series caps would make a superior non polar cap than any of the pre
made ones out there (Black Gates being an exception). Avoid the
Roedersteins, I've removed thousands of them over the years and they
sound like there's cotton stuffed up your ears. (Plus they are very
large).

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Related resources
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 2:39:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

For sound quality & (especially) reliability, NOTHING can touch the Nichicon Muse bipolars,
which are available cheaply from Handmade Electronics in Allentown, Penna. Digikey finally
started carrying Nichicon caps recently, but not the top grade Muse series. Vastly better than
the Panasonics of any grade or era.

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Jack" <caligulashorse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c34b05f.0411290000.263de5fb@posting.google.com...
> Hey,
>
> I'm taking on my first recap project, and I've noticed several
> bi-polar caps in the circuit. I was planning on using Panasonic FCs
> for the whole thing, but it appears as though there aren't any in the
> FC series, any suggestions on types I could use, or are they
> generally less important (i.e. are bi-polar caps generally not used in
> the audio signal path?) Thanks
>
> /John\
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 5:19:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jack <caligulashorse@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I'm taking on my first recap project, and I've noticed several
>bi-polar caps in the circuit. I was planning on using Panasonic FCs
>for the whole thing, but it appears as though there aren't any in the
>FC series, any suggestions on types I could use, or are they
>generally less important (i.e. are bi-polar caps generally not used in
>the audio signal path?) Thanks

What is the device?

Bipolar caps are almost always found in the audio path when you see them,
but you'll need the schematic to be sure. You don't need them in supply
decoupling applications.

Panasonic does make some okay NP types, which you will find a couple pages
later in the Digi-Key book.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 6:09:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jack wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I'm taking on my first recap project, and I've noticed several
> bi-polar caps in the circuit. I was planning on using Panasonic FCs
> for the whole thing, but it appears as though there aren't any in the
> FC series, any suggestions on types I could use, or are they
> generally less important (i.e. are bi-polar caps generally not used in
> the audio signal path?) Thanks
>
> /John\

Hi John,
The panasonic SU series are bi-polars, available at digikey.

Brian
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 6:33:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Brian Allen wrote:

> Jack wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > I'm taking on my first recap project, and I've noticed several
> > bi-polar caps in the circuit. I was planning on using Panasonic FCs
> > for the whole thing, but it appears as though there aren't any in the
> > FC series, any suggestions on types I could use, or are they
> > generally less important (i.e. are bi-polar caps generally not used in
> > the audio signal path?) Thanks
> >
> > /John\
>
> Hi John,
> The panasonic SU series are bi-polars, available at digikey.

Can't tell your location since you're posting through google.

If you're in the UK ( or anywhere else they operate ) , Farnell has a range
too. Also known as 'non-polarised'.

http://uk.farnell.com/jsp/endecaSearch/searchPage2.jsp?...



Graham
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 5:16:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Stephen Sank wrote:

> For sound quality & (especially) reliability, NOTHING can touch the Nichicon Muse bipolars,
> which are available cheaply from Handmade Electronics in Allentown, Penna. Digikey finally
> started carrying Nichicon caps recently, but not the top grade Muse series. Vastly better than
> the Panasonics of any grade or era.

What characteristics affect the sound quality in your opinion ?

In the audio band, I'd expect a cap to be pretty much a cap. Excepting medium and Hi-Z ceramics
with their voltage dependent dielectric characteristics.

Graham
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 11:24:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Stephen Sank" <bk11@thuntek.net> wrote in message news:<cofqnm$kfu$1@reader2.nmix.net>...
> For sound quality & (especially) reliability, NOTHING can touch the Nichicon Muse bipolars,
> which are available cheaply from Handmade Electronics in Allentown, Penna. Digikey finally
> started carrying Nichicon caps recently, but not the top grade Muse series. Vastly better than
> the Panasonics of any grade or era.
> Have you evaluated the new Panasonic FM series? I would submit that the Rubycon Black Gates are by far the finest electrolytic caps. I also believe no electrolytic cap is good enough for high quality music without another high Q bypass cap around it. Electrolytic caps smash pulses and therefore are transient killers.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

> --
> Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
> Talking Dog Transducer Company
> http://stephensank.com
> 5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
> Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
> 505-332-0336
> Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
> Payments preferred through Paypal.com
> "Jack" <caligulashorse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c34b05f.0411290000.263de5fb@posting.google.com...
> > Hey,
> >
> > I'm taking on my first recap project, and I've noticed several
> > bi-polar caps in the circuit. I was planning on using Panasonic FCs
> > for the whole thing, but it appears as though there aren't any in the
> > FC series, any suggestions on types I could use, or are they
> > generally less important (i.e. are bi-polar caps generally not used in
> > the audio signal path?) Thanks
> >
> > /John\
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 2:13:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Rubycon Black Gates have quite good performance(though still not as good as Nichicon Muse), as
do Elna Cerafine/Silmic caps, but both makers have a horrible reliability track record, at
least in my 30 years of experience. In all of that time, I can count on one hand, with fingers
left over, the number of Nichicon caps of ANY age or grade that I have had to replace, compared
to many hundreds(thousands, perhaps) of Elna & Rubycon caps. I would say that Rubycon in
particular is the single most UNreliable lytic maker in the world. Just ask any VCR tech.
Panasonics are very reliable & good performers, but a distant second on both counts at any
grade versus Nichicon.
And I do very much agree that even the best lytics need good film byassing for audio apps,
whether in the signal path or power supply. Considering the chemistry/physics of lytics, it's
a miracle they work at all.

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Jim Williams" <jwilliams3@audioupgrades.com> wrote in message
news:a377f4b9.0411300824.5c6a504@posting.google.com...
> "Stephen Sank" <bk11@thuntek.net> wrote in message news:<cofqnm$kfu$1@reader2.nmix.net>...
> > For sound quality & (especially) reliability, NOTHING can touch the Nichicon Muse bipolars,
> > which are available cheaply from Handmade Electronics in Allentown, Penna. Digikey finally
> > started carrying Nichicon caps recently, but not the top grade Muse series. Vastly better
than
> > the Panasonics of any grade or era.
> > Have you evaluated the new Panasonic FM series? I would submit that the Rubycon Black Gates
are by far the finest electrolytic caps. I also believe no electrolytic cap is good enough for
high quality music without another high Q bypass cap around it. Electrolytic caps smash pulses
and therefore are transient killers.
>
> Jim Williams
> Audio Upgrades
>
> > --
> > Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
> > Talking Dog Transducer Company
> > http://stephensank.com
> > 5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
> > Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
> > 505-332-0336
> > Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
> > Payments preferred through Paypal.com
> > "Jack" <caligulashorse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c34b05f.0411290000.263de5fb@posting.google.com...
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > I'm taking on my first recap project, and I've noticed several
> > > bi-polar caps in the circuit. I was planning on using Panasonic FCs
> > > for the whole thing, but it appears as though there aren't any in the
> > > FC series, any suggestions on types I could use, or are they
> > > generally less important (i.e. are bi-polar caps generally not used in
> > > the audio signal path?) Thanks
> > >
> > > /John\
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 7:53:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Stephen Sank wrote:

> Rubycon Black Gates have quite good performance(though still not as good as Nichicon Muse), as
> do Elna Cerafine/Silmic caps, but both makers have a horrible reliability track record, at
> least in my 30 years of experience. In all of that time, I can count on one hand, with fingers
> left over, the number of Nichicon caps of ANY age or grade that I have had to replace, compared
> to many hundreds(thousands, perhaps) of Elna & Rubycon caps. I would say that Rubycon in
> particular is the single most UNreliable lytic maker in the world. Just ask any VCR tech.
> Panasonics are very reliable & good performers, but a distant second on both counts at any
> grade versus Nichicon.
> And I do very much agree that even the best lytics need good film byassing for audio apps,
> whether in the signal path or power supply. Considering the chemistry/physics of lytics, it's
> a miracle they work at all.

Reliability is one issue for sure. If you want long term ultra reliability, don't use caps with an
electrolyte that can dry out.

I sometimes wonder about the condition of those NOS electros being sold on ebay to gullible fools
who think old parts are better than new.

I note an apparent reluctacnce to discuss a scientific reason for the different alleged *sound* of
various brands of capacitors.

Might that be because it's simply rubbish ?

I'd like to see a rational reason posted for bypassing electros with film caps in coupling
applications though.


Graham
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 12:19:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I note an apparent reluctacnce to discuss a scientific reason for the different alleged *sound* of
>various brands of capacitors.
>
>Might that be because it's simply rubbish ?

I'm not willing to say it's rubbish. And I might be willing to believe it
has something to do with rectification effects. I have not seen any good
measurements on this, in either direction.

I _do_ know that if there is too low a DC bias on an electrolytic capacitor,
there are extreme low-level nonlinearities. These are very audible, and
the normal solution, of course, is to make sure the voltage across the cap
is never even close to the zero-crossing. The question is whether any of
these nonlinearities exist at higher levels, and I can't answer that.

>I'd like to see a rational reason posted for bypassing electros with film caps in coupling
>applications though.

If the issue is high order harmonics being generated by small rectification
effects, a bypass capacitor will clean that up.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 8:10:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear"

> I note an apparent reluctacnce to discuss a scientific reason for the
> different alleged *sound* of
> various brands of capacitors.
>
> Might that be because it's simply rubbish ?


** .......... :-0 !!!!

>
> I'd like to see a rational reason posted for bypassing electros with film
> caps in coupling
> applications though.
>


** There is one, the original one that the practice has likely derived
om - tube radios have such bypassed electros in their PSUs. The armchair
experts there have assumed the use of 0.1uF paper caps in parallel with 8
uF, 350 volt electros was to counter the electros alleged "inductance".
But it was not.

It was there to counter RF instability due to the electros ESR at AM radio
frequencies.

The ESR of an old style, low cost 10 uF, 350 volt electro is 15 - 30 ohms -
paralleling a 0.1uF paper cap brought this down to 1 or 2 ohms.





.............. Phil
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 8:10:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>
>>I'd like to see a rational reason posted for bypassing electros with film
>>caps in coupling
>>applications though.
>>
>
Phil wrote:
>
> ** There is one, the original one that the practice has likely derived
> om - tube radios have such bypassed electros in their PSUs. The armchair
> experts there have assumed the use of 0.1uF paper caps in parallel with 8
> uF, 350 volt electros was to counter the electros alleged "inductance".
> But it was not.
>
> It was there to counter RF instability due to the electros ESR at AM radio
> frequencies.
>
> The ESR of an old style, low cost 10 uF, 350 volt electro is 15 - 30 ohms -
> paralleling a 0.1uF paper cap brought this down to 1 or 2 ohms.
>


This was what my dad told me as well, but even more applicable to the
broadcast transmitters and radar systems he was responsible for. In the
early '70's the electrolytics were still no where near as nice as they
are now, and the film bypass of larger >470uF or so was an audible
improvement.

Nowadays, thanks to the advances made to accomodate switching supplies
the caps have all improved rather dramatically, and I really don't hear
any significant difference with bypassing or different brands.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 9:21:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >I note an apparent reluctacnce to discuss a scientific reason for the different alleged *sound* of
> >various brands of capacitors.
> >
> >Might that be because it's simply rubbish ?
>
> I'm not willing to say it's rubbish. And I might be willing to believe it
> has something to do with rectification effects. I have not seen any good
> measurements on this, in either direction.

Me neither. I'm tempted to have a look though !


> I _do_ know that if there is too low a DC bias on an electrolytic capacitor,
> there are extreme low-level nonlinearities. These are very audible, and
> the normal solution, of course, is to make sure the voltage across the cap
> is never even close to the zero-crossing. The question is whether any of
> these nonlinearities exist at higher levels, and I can't answer that.
>

My understanding is that any rectification effects take place when an electrolytic has > 0.5 reverse V
approx applied. It's easy to ensure this never happens in a coupling cap application - not least by
the use of large values since the component of the signal appearing across the cap will be in the
millivolt area.

Seems to work for the likes of Neve and SSL to mention a couple of high end names using electros with
zero bias. Not to mention almost all pro-audio gear made.


> >I'd like to see a rational reason posted for bypassing electros with film caps in coupling
> >applications though.
>
> If the issue is high order harmonics being generated by small rectification
> effects, a bypass capacitor will clean that up.

Suggested value to bypass 100uF ?


Graham
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 10:15:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41B0046E.450F6265@hotmail.com...
> DeserTBoB wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:53:12 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I sometimes wonder about the condition of those NOS electros being sold
on ebay to gullible fools
> > >who think old parts are better than new. <snip>
> >
> > No need to wonder...they're "unformed" and instantly turn into a bomb
> > when B+ is applied.
>
> What has that to do with *coupling* caps ?

Plenty, if the coupling caps are used on a single-supply circuit.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 10:42:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Stamler wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41B0046E.450F6265@hotmail.com...
> > DeserTBoB wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:53:12 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I sometimes wonder about the condition of those NOS electros being sold
> on ebay to gullible fools
> > > >who think old parts are better than new. <snip>
> > >
> > > No need to wonder...they're "unformed" and instantly turn into a bomb
> > > when B+ is applied.
> >
> > What has that to do with *coupling* caps ?
>
> Plenty, if the coupling caps are used on a single-supply circuit.

I think the reference was to using them as supply 'bypass caps'.


Graham
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:13:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Strange that almost every single high end recording console uses electrolytics for coupling then ?

Because in the solid-state world there isn't much choice. And one of the
big problems with the early solid-state world is that people adopted the
usual single-ended capacitively-coupled designs that were common with tubes.
Since input impedances were so low, massive caps were required, and so of
course electrolytics turn up.

If somebody made a film cap that was almost as small as an electrolytic and
in the same price range, I don't think you'd see any high end recording
consoles still using electrolytics.

>All ceramics aren't bad btw. The ones with low-K dielectrics like NPO don't suffer the dielectric
>non-linearity You'd only use them for feedback or small value caps in EQ sections though. Not good for
>any more than 330-470 pF in practice..

I really want to know more about ceramic caps... I used to have a strong
anti-ceramic bias until I tried some of the newer COG types which are less
microphonic by a long shot. I want to thank John Hardy for turning me on
to some of the better quality ceramics today. I have used them as coupling
caps in very high-Z circuits and have actually been pleased with the
performance compared with most of the film caps.

>The 'rectification effect' in electrolytics only appears AFAIK when a reverse voltage of around 0.5 V
>is applied. Keep the reverse volts due to an a.c. signal below that and it doesn't happen. That
>*doesn't* mean restricting the a.c. signal value to below 0.5 V though. Think 'potential divider' and
>use large value caps. I commonly use 100uF for outputs and 10uF for inputs where Zin is > = 10k ohm.

Right. Our question is whether there might be some other nonlinear effects
in addition to this one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:13:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey said:

>I really want to know more about ceramic caps... I used to have a strong
>anti-ceramic bias until I tried some of the newer COG types which are less
>microphonic by a long shot. I want to thank John Hardy for turning me on
>to some of the better quality ceramics today. I have used them as coupling
>caps in very high-Z circuits and have actually been pleased with the
>performance compared with most of the film caps.
>
Thanks for bringing that up. I wrote a paper (logically) entitled
"Ceramic Capacitors" shortly after I began manufacturing the 990
discrete op-amp, and Jung/Marsh had written an article bashing ceramic
capacitors. I pretty much had to use ceramics for the 62pF, 91pF and
150pF values in the 990 circuit due to size limitations, but the premium
type known as the "COG" or "NP0" type, is excellent. If anyone wants to
read my paper, it is on the back page of my 990 data package at:

http://www.johnhardyco.com/pdf/990.pdf

Thank you.

John Hardy
The John Hardy Co.
www.johnhardyco.com
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:15:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Dan Kennedy"
>
>>
>>>I'd like to see a rational reason posted for bypassing electros with film
>>>caps in coupling
>>>applications though.
>>>
>>
> Phil wrote:
>>
>> ** There is one, the original one that the practice has likely derived
>> om - tube radios have such bypassed electros in their PSUs. The
>> armchair experts there have assumed the use of 0.1uF paper caps in
>> parallel with 8 uF, 350 volt electros was to counter the electros
>> alleged "inductance". But it was not.
>>
>> It was there to counter RF instability due to the electros ESR at AM
>> radio frequencies.
>>
>> The ESR of an old style, low cost 10 uF, 350 volt electro is 15 - 30
>> hms - paralleling a 0.1uF paper cap brought this down to 1 or 2 ohms.
>>
>
>
> This was what my dad told me as well, but even more applicable to the
> broadcast transmitters and radar systems he was responsible for. In the
> early '70's the electrolytics were still no where near as nice as they are
> now, and the film bypass of larger >470uF or so was an audible
> improvement.
>


** I have seen many electros that were made in the 1960s of between 20 and
100uF @ 500volts ( in old Fender amps etc ) and their ESR values, even now,
are not more than 1 or 2 ohms. Most modern equivalents are much the same.


> Nowadays, thanks to the advances made to accomodate switching supplies
> the caps have all improved rather dramatically,


** The electrolyte formulation has improved to give far higher
onductivity - so permitting lower ESR values and smaller packages.


> and I really don't hear
> any significant difference with bypassing or different brands.
>


** Correct.



............... Phil
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:17:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>My understanding is that any rectification effects take place when an electrolytic has > 0.5 reverse V
>approx applied. It's easy to ensure this never happens in a coupling cap application - not least by
>the use of large values since the component of the signal appearing across the cap will be in the
>millivolt area.

I will buy that.

>Seems to work for the likes of Neve and SSL to mention a couple of high end names using electros with
>zero bias. Not to mention almost all pro-audio gear made.

Yes, agreed. But, I once changed the tantalums in a Neve channel strip out
for film caps, with large enough values to get good low end. Sounded very
clean and very nice to me. Everybody else in the studio also heard a change
in sound, and they all hated it and I was almost fired.

Clearly there was _something_ changing the sound about the tantalums, even
though they were all carefully biased.

>> >I'd like to see a rational reason posted for bypassing electros with film caps in coupling
>> >applications though.
>>
>> If the issue is high order harmonics being generated by small rectification
>> effects, a bypass capacitor will clean that up.
>
>Suggested value to bypass 100uF ?

I think the tradition is to use a bypass cap that is about 1/100th the value
of the electrolytic as a rule of thumb. I am not sure where that came from
or how it was derived.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:29:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Paul Stamler wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:41B0046E.450F6265@hotmail.com...
>> > DeserTBoB wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:53:12 +0000, Pooh Bear
>> > > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >I sometimes wonder about the condition of those NOS electros being sold
>> on ebay to gullible fools
>> > > >who think old parts are better than new. <snip>
>> > >
>> > > No need to wonder...they're "unformed" and instantly turn into a bomb
>> > > when B+ is applied.
>> >
>> > What has that to do with *coupling* caps ?
>>
>> Plenty, if the coupling caps are used on a single-supply circuit.
>
>I think the reference was to using them as supply 'bypass caps'.

As Paul points out, a supply bypass cap is directly in the audio path in
a single-ended circuit, and could arguably be considered a an audio coupling
cap if you wanted to get pedantic about it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 1:30:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41B0046E.450F6265@hotmail.com

> DeserTBoB wrote:

>> I was intrigued enough by this article to start doing some studies
>> with what bench gear I had at the time, and sure enough...my results
>> turned out identical to those in the article, with polyprops
>> distorting less than any other dielectric type tested.
>
> How were you measuring distortion ?

> How can you explain ployester/mylar 'distorting' ? I find this
> puzzling for any plastic film. I never saw a polyester cap distort
> when measured by an AP test set.

Agreed, based on measurements by other means, but with similar residuals.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 1:31:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:BoUrd.1021143$Gx4.993371@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> "Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41B0046E.450F6265@hotmail.com...
>> DeserTBoB wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:53:12 +0000, Pooh Bear
>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I sometimes wonder about the condition of those NOS electros being
>>>> sold on ebay to gullible fools who think old parts are better than
>>>> new. <snip>
>>>
>>> No need to wonder...they're "unformed" and instantly turn into a
>>> bomb when B+ is applied.
>>
>> What has that to do with *coupling* caps ?
>
> Plenty, if the coupling caps are used on a single-supply circuit.

Except that in that case the coupling caps are loaded with high enough
impedances that explosions are pretty rare.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 3:06:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> DeserTBoB wrote:
>
>>> I was intrigued enough by this article to start doing some studies
>>> with what bench gear I had at the time, and sure enough...my results
>>> turned out identical to those in the article, with polyprops
>>> distorting less than any other dielectric type tested.
>>
>> How were you measuring distortion ?
>
>> How can you explain ployester/mylar 'distorting' ? I find this
>> puzzling for any plastic film. I never saw a polyester cap distort
>> when measured by an AP test set.
>
>Agreed, based on measurements by other means, but with similar residuals.

The main distortion mode for film caps is caused by electrostatic attraction
slightly changing the value of the cap based on the charge across it. This
ought to be minimal in most audio applications (and pretty much nonexistent
in low voltage solid state applications), and not really very important in
coupling applications anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 3:43:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:43:22 +1100, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:


> Your tests were obviously stupid and false - as is proved by your NOT
>detailing them. <snip>

....and you're a moron.

dB
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 1:59:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey"
>
>>Seems to work for the likes of Neve and SSL to mention a couple of high
>>end names using electros with
>>zero bias. Not to mention almost all pro-audio gear made.
>
> Yes, agreed. But, I once changed the tantalums in a Neve channel strip
> out
> for film caps, with large enough values to get good low end. Sounded very
> clean and very nice to me. Everybody else in the studio also heard a
> change
> in sound, and they all hated it and I was almost fired.


** Really ?? And this is your idea of proof ?????


>
>>> >I'd like to see a rational reason posted for bypassing electros with
>>> >film caps in coupling
>>> >applications though.
>>>
>>> If the issue is high order harmonics being generated by small
>>> rectification
>>> effects, a bypass capacitor will clean that up.
>>
>>Suggested value to bypass 100uF ?
>
> I think the tradition is to use a bypass cap that is about 1/100th the
> value
> of the electrolytic as a rule of thumb. I am not sure where that came
> from
> or how it was derived.


** Dorsey is not sure about any damn thing.

But just loves to spread ridiculous misinformation and waste other folk's
time and money.





.............. Phil
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 2:02:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"DeserTBoB" = Bob the Tosser

>
>> Your tests were obviously stupid and false - as is proved by your NOT
>>detailing them. <snip>
>
> ...and you're a moron.
>


** More proof by wild assertion - same as all the rest of your posts.




.............. Phil
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 2:05:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey"...

>
> As Paul points out, a supply bypass cap is directly in the audio path in
> a single-ended circuit,


** Errrr - what is "single ended" here ??

A class A tube stage with no NFB ??






................ Phil
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 2:11:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey"
> Pooh Bear
>>
>>Strange that almost every single high end recording console uses
>>electrolytics for coupling then ?
>
> Because in the solid-state world there isn't much choice.


** The fact is that they work in that situation with no distortion
issues - despite having no DC bias.

Blows your idiotic capacitor paranoia out the window.

Just like your even more idiotic LM301 paranoia.



>>>The 'rectification effect' in electrolytics only appears AFAIK when a
>>>reverse voltage of around 0.5 V
>>is applied. Keep the reverse volts due to an a.c. signal below that and
>>it doesn't happen. That
>>*doesn't* mean restricting the a.c. signal value to below 0.5 V though.
>>Think 'potential divider' and
>>use large value caps. I commonly use 100uF for outputs and 10uF for inputs
>>where Zin is > = 10k ohm.
>
> Right. Our question is whether there might be some other nonlinear
> effects
> in addition to this one.
>


** Been studied for years and nothing has turned up yet.

Waste of time telling a rabid capacitor paranoid like Dorsey that
though.





................. Phil
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 2:11:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:11:18 +1100, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> Blows your idiotic capacitor paranoia out the window.
>
> Just like your even more idiotic LM301 paranoia. <snip>

I think I just found the "group troll!"

> ** Been studied for years and nothing has turned up yet.
>
> Waste of time telling a rabid capacitor paranoid like Dorsey that
>though. <snip>

Someone's off their meds....

dB
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 2:11:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> "DeserTBoB"

>>I think I just found the "group troll!"


Yup.
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 2:11:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 16:06:15 +1100, "Phil Allison"
<philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> ** "S O'Neill" = an anencephalic pig with hick ups. <snip>

HICCUPS...the word is HICCUPS. Illiterate as well, I see! And yes,
the Jung/Marsh article was what I was referring to in the outset. If
I was able to repeat their results using simple bench gear, how is it
somehow "discredited?" Never mind, I really don't think your
"opinion" matters a wit.

Next stop for Phil: Kill File City

dB
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 12:52:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"DeserTBoB" = Bob the Tosser
Phil Allison

>
>> ** "S O'Neill" = an anencephalic pig with hick ups. <snip>
>
> HICCUPS...the word is HICCUPS.


** Poetic license.

> the Jung/Marsh article was what I was referring to in the outset.


** But kept that fact hidden to make your posturing even more pathetic.


> If I was able to repeat their results using simple bench gear, how is it
> somehow "discredited?"


** O' Neill is not he only anencephalic round here.

Go look up the critiques dickhead - the tests were utterly irrelevant
to caps as commonly used in audio.


> Never mind, I really don't think your
> "opinion" matters a wit.


** The dribbling of a demented, witless fool like Bob the Tosser serve only
as a danger to the public.


> Next stop for Phil: Kill File City


** Shoving your fat ugly head down a dunny would be better.




............... Phil
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 6:34:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

DeserTBoB wrote:
>
> Hobbyist-grade mag "Audio" did a fairly good article on this many
> moons ago, but concentrated more on the TYPE of dielectric, rather
> than descend into grading various brands.

It's from 1980, co-authored by Walt Jung, and it's online:

http://www.capacitors.com/portals/Information.html

Also, IIRC, Cyril Bateman (a capacitor designer) did a long series
in Electronics World a couple years ago with similar measurements
(I think the series started with details of construction of the
equipment he used to measure low level distortion for the tests).
This might provide more recent data, important if dielectric properties
have changed significantly.

It seems to me both studies demonstrate without much room for doubt
that different dielectrics give rise to measurably different levels of
distortion in coupling applications. Whether the differences are
audible is another issue....

Peace,
Tom

--

To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:15:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:34:45 -0500, Tom Loredo
<loredo@somewhere.cornell.edu> wrote:

>It seems to me both studies demonstrate without much room for doubt
>that different dielectrics give rise to measurably different levels of
>distortion in coupling applications. Whether the differences are
>audible is another issue....


Further to this, and at the risk of drawing the ire of those who have
contrary experience, I have found not-so-subtle sonic differences
between a number of "high grade" electrolytics in certain audio path
applications. Can I measure the perceived differences with common
tools (THD, IMD, FFT, etc.)? Sorry, no. Does this invalidate
subjective results? For some it may. For me, subjective results often
take precedent over numbers.

JL
December 7, 2004 5:17:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John La Grou wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:34:45 -0500, Tom Loredo
> <loredo@somewhere.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> >It seems to me both studies demonstrate without much room for doubt
> >that different dielectrics give rise to measurably different levels
of
> >distortion in coupling applications. Whether the differences are
> >audible is another issue....
>
>
> Further to this, and at the risk of drawing the ire of those who have
> contrary experience, I have found not-so-subtle sonic differences
> between a number of "high grade" electrolytics in certain audio path
> applications. Can I measure the perceived differences with common
> tools (THD, IMD, FFT, etc.)? Sorry, no. Does this invalidate
> subjective results? For some it may. For me, subjective results often
> take precedent over numbers.
>
> JL

You're saying you could not measure "NOT SO SUBTLE SONIC DIFFERENCES".

If they were not subtle, you should be able to easily measure them.

Didn't this make you question the validity of your listening tests?

Were the listening tests A/B or did you listen one day, change the
caps, then listen the next day?

Why don't you describe the sonic differences you heard and propopse a
theory as to why they could not be measured.
Then we will have progress.


Mark
December 7, 2004 5:19:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John La Grou wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:34:45 -0500, Tom Loredo
> <loredo@somewhere.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> >It seems to me both studies demonstrate without much room for doubt
> >that different dielectrics give rise to measurably different levels
of
> >distortion in coupling applications. Whether the differences are
> >audible is another issue....
>
>
> Further to this, and at the risk of drawing the ire of those who have
> contrary experience, I have found not-so-subtle sonic differences
> between a number of "high grade" electrolytics in certain audio path
> applications. Can I measure the perceived differences with common
> tools (THD, IMD, FFT, etc.)? Sorry, no. Does this invalidate
> subjective results? For some it may. For me, subjective results often
> take precedent over numbers.
>
> JL

You're saying you could not measure "NOT SO SUBTLE SONIC DIFFERENCES".

If they were not subtle, you should be able to easily measure them.

Didn't this make you question the validity of your listening tests?

Were the listening tests A/B or did you listen one day, change the
caps, then listen the next day?

Why don't you describe the sonic differences you heard and propopse a
theory as to why they could not be measured.
Then we will have progress.


Mark
December 7, 2004 5:19:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

John La Grou wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:34:45 -0500, Tom Loredo
> <loredo@somewhere.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> >It seems to me both studies demonstrate without much room for doubt
> >that different dielectrics give rise to measurably different levels
of
> >distortion in coupling applications. Whether the differences are
> >audible is another issue....
>
>
> Further to this, and at the risk of drawing the ire of those who have
> contrary experience, I have found not-so-subtle sonic differences
> between a number of "high grade" electrolytics in certain audio path
> applications. Can I measure the perceived differences with common
> tools (THD, IMD, FFT, etc.)? Sorry, no. Does this invalidate
> subjective results? For some it may. For me, subjective results often
> take precedent over numbers.
>
> JL

You're saying you could not measure "NOT SO SUBTLE SONIC DIFFERENCES".

If they were not subtle, you should be able to easily measure them.

Didn't this make you question the validity of your listening tests?

Were the listening tests A/B or did you listen one day, change the
caps, then listen the next day?

Why don't you describe the sonic differences you heard and propopse a
theory as to why they could not be measured.
Then we will have progress.


Mark
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:51:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:15:32 GMT, John La Grou <jl@jps.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:34:45 -0500, Tom Loredo
><loredo@somewhere.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>>It seems to me both studies demonstrate without much room for doubt
>>that different dielectrics give rise to measurably different levels of
>>distortion in coupling applications. Whether the differences are
>>audible is another issue....
>
>
> Further to this, and at the risk of drawing the ire of those who have
> contrary experience, I have found not-so-subtle sonic differences
> between a number of "high grade" electrolytics in certain audio path
> applications. Can I measure the perceived differences with common
> tools (THD, IMD, FFT, etc.)? Sorry, no. Does this invalidate
> subjective results? For some it may. For me, subjective results often
> take precedent over numbers.
>

Might be a case when you're not measuring the right things. Did you try
measuring the response to a step function? That often reveals things
that a steady-state measurement doesn't.

Remember how long it took EEs to acknoledge that tubes really DID sound
different from transistors?
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 3:07:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 7 Dec 2004 14:19:30 -0800, "Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You're saying you could not measure "NOT <snip>

WHY is it that people posting from "goo goo groups" wind up hitting
this NG three times with the same message and a different message
number?

Goo goo groups is lame. Get a newsreader and an NNTP account.

dB
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:24:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles" <"Charles Krug"@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9kktd.3508$MS6.3456@trndny01

> Remember how long it took EEs to acknoledge that tubes really DID
> sound different from transistors?

Say what?

By the time SS amps came out, the performance differences between the two
kinds of devices were exquisitely well known by EE types.

Admittedly, EEs were intially distracted by the fact that their SS amps had
a nasty tendency to simply stop working, destroying a lot of expensive
output transistors, and sometimes taking the speakers with them.

Once the dust settled, the far lower nonlinear distortion of SS circuitry
became quite obvious. And, the most linear tubed amps with good damping
factors never have sounded that gosh-awfully different than the good SS
ones.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:26:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
news:udl9r0p33gr7dgrcr0dpc2p9h7d2vunehn@4ax.com
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:34:45 -0500, Tom Loredo
> <loredo@somewhere.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>> It seems to me both studies demonstrate without much room for doubt
>> that different dielectrics give rise to measurably different levels
>> of distortion in coupling applications. Whether the differences are
>> audible is another issue....
>
>
> Further to this, and at the risk of drawing the ire of those who have
> contrary experience, I have found not-so-subtle sonic differences
> between a number of "high grade" electrolytics in certain audio path
> applications. Can I measure the perceived differences with common
> tools (THD, IMD, FFT, etc.)? Sorry, no. Does this invalidate
> subjective results? For some it may. For me, subjective results often
> take precedent over numbers.


I've never seen a case where there was a reliably-observable subjective
difference that when appropriately measured, didn't turn out to be
relatively huge.

The noise in the subjective/objective comparison almost always comes from
the use of improper subjective tests, you know not adequately
bias-controlled.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:28:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102457945.963877.256390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

> Were the listening tests A/B or did you listen one day, change the
> caps, then listen the next day?

More significnatly, they seem to be sighted or single blind. Single blind is
of course what you all a double blind test with obvious flaws.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:11:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles" <"Charles Krug"@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:9kktd.3508$MS6.3456@trndny01
>
>> Remember how long it took EEs to acknoledge that tubes really DID
>> sound different from transistors?
>
>Say what?
>
>By the time SS amps came out, the performance differences between the two
>kinds of devices were exquisitely well known by EE types.
>
>Admittedly, EEs were intially distracted by the fact that their SS amps had
>a nasty tendency to simply stop working, destroying a lot of expensive
>output transistors, and sometimes taking the speakers with them.

Mr. Krug is probably referring to the issues with early solid state designs
that used excessive feedback to compensate for device linearity, and wound
up with circuits that measured well with continuous tones, but very poorly
with transients. It took a while for engineers to figure out new measurements
to describe what was going on.

>Once the dust settled, the far lower nonlinear distortion of SS circuitry
>became quite obvious. And, the most linear tubed amps with good damping
>factors never have sounded that gosh-awfully different than the good SS
>ones.

For the most part, the main difference is that the tube amps have output
transformers. The coloration in the transformer is far greater than in
any of the electronics. In general, solid state amps with output
transformers tend to sound a lot like tube amps.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:36:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:15:32 GMT, John La Grou <jl@jps.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:34:45 -0500, Tom Loredo
> ><loredo@somewhere.cornell.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>It seems to me both studies demonstrate without much room for doubt
> >>that different dielectrics give rise to measurably different levels of
> >>distortion in coupling applications. Whether the differences are
> >>audible is another issue....
> >
> >
> > Further to this, and at the risk of drawing the ire of those who have
> > contrary experience, I have found not-so-subtle sonic differences
> > between a number of "high grade" electrolytics in certain audio path
> > applications. Can I measure the perceived differences with common
> > tools (THD, IMD, FFT, etc.)? Sorry, no. Does this invalidate
> > subjective results? For some it may. For me, subjective results often
> > take precedent over numbers.
> >
>
> Might be a case when you're not measuring the right things. Did you try
> measuring the response to a step function? That often reveals things
> that a steady-state measurement doesn't.
>
> Remember how long it took EEs to acknoledge that tubes really DID sound
> different from transistors?

Uh ?

It's pretty obvious actually. Who says it took a long time ? THD will
explain it if you know how to interpret the residual.


Graham
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 2:00:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:24:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>Once the dust settled, the far lower nonlinear distortion of SS circuitry
>became quite obvious. And, the most linear tubed amps with good damping
>factors never have sounded that gosh-awfully different than the good SS
>ones. <snip>

Compare any tube McIntosh, KT66 or 88, with a MOSFET Hafler at the
same power level well below clipping of the Mac. I challenge anyone
here to explain the sonic difference...in real terms, no "audiophool"
claptrap.

dB
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 2:07:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I don't often disagree with Scott, but, my own experience tells me the the output transformer
is only a significant source of coloration with poor quality transformers(ala Dynaco, Fisher,
Scott, etc.). When I compare the sound of, e.g., a McIntosh MC275 with an OTL amp, such as the
KSS, Atmasphere or Futterman amps, there is a fundamental similarity of sound, i.e., smooth
treble, lovely midrange, and actual *depth* of soundstage(a rarity in solid state designs).
For the best synopsis I've ever read of the real differences in sound between tube & ss audio
gear, look up Harvey Rosenberg's "Understanding Tube Electronics".

--
Stephen Sank, Owner & Ribbon Mic Restorer
Talking Dog Transducer Company
http://stephensank.com
5517 Carmelita Drive N.E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico [87111]
505-332-0336
Auth. Nakamichi & McIntosh servicer
Payments preferred through Paypal.com
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message news:cp7228$c5i$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >"U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles" <"Charles Krug"@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:9kktd.3508$MS6.3456@trndny01
> >
> >> Remember how long it took EEs to acknoledge that tubes really DID
> >> sound different from transistors?
> >
> >Say what?
> >
> >By the time SS amps came out, the performance differences between the two
> >kinds of devices were exquisitely well known by EE types.
> >
> >Admittedly, EEs were intially distracted by the fact that their SS amps had
> >a nasty tendency to simply stop working, destroying a lot of expensive
> >output transistors, and sometimes taking the speakers with them.
>
> Mr. Krug is probably referring to the issues with early solid state designs
> that used excessive feedback to compensate for device linearity, and wound
> up with circuits that measured well with continuous tones, but very poorly
> with transients. It took a while for engineers to figure out new measurements
> to describe what was going on.
>
> >Once the dust settled, the far lower nonlinear distortion of SS circuitry
> >became quite obvious. And, the most linear tubed amps with good damping
> >factors never have sounded that gosh-awfully different than the good SS
> >ones.
>
> For the most part, the main difference is that the tube amps have output
> transformers. The coloration in the transformer is far greater than in
> any of the electronics. In general, solid state amps with output
> transformers tend to sound a lot like tube amps.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 4:14:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Stephen Sank <bk11@thuntek.net> wrote:
>I don't often disagree with Scott, but, my own experience tells me the the output transformer
>is only a significant source of coloration with poor quality transformers(ala Dynaco, Fisher,
>Scott, etc.). When I compare the sound of, e.g., a McIntosh MC275 with an OTL amp, such as the
>KSS, Atmasphere or Futterman amps, there is a fundamental similarity of sound, i.e., smooth
>treble, lovely midrange, and actual *depth* of soundstage(a rarity in solid state designs).
>For the best synopsis I've ever read of the real differences in sound between tube & ss audio
>gear, look up Harvey Rosenberg's "Understanding Tube Electronics".

Hmm... I disagree a lot with that. And maybe the differences I hear between
something like the MC275 or the Citation II and an OTL amp are due to the
differences in output impedance, but I hear an openness in the top end with
the OTL amps that I just don't hear on any of the conventional ones.

I do agree that there is a huge gulf between the high grade and the middle of
the road transformers, though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
December 8, 2004 4:46:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John La Grou" <jl@jps.net> wrote in message
> news:udl9r0p33gr7dgrcr0dpc2p9h7d2vunehn@4ax.com
> > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:34:45 -0500, Tom Loredo
> > <loredo@somewhere.cornell.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> It seems to me both studies demonstrate without much room for
doubt
> >> that different dielectrics give rise to measurably different
levels
> >> of distortion in coupling applications. Whether the differences
are
> >> audible is another issue....
> >
> >
> > Further to this, and at the risk of drawing the ire of those who
have
> > contrary experience, I have found not-so-subtle sonic differences
> > between a number of "high grade" electrolytics in certain audio
path
> > applications. Can I measure the perceived differences with common
> > tools (THD, IMD, FFT,.
> etc.)? Sorry, no. Does this invalidate
> > subjective results? For some it may. For me, subjective results
often
> > take precedent over numbers
>
> I've never seen a case where there was a reliably-observable
subjective
> difference that when appropriately measured, didn't turn out to be
> relatively huge.
>
>

I agree, and that's my point, if someone hears a difference due to
bipolar caps or due to whatever, then make the measurements to identify
what the actual cause is, then we can make some progress. I would
think you would want to do this for your own curiosity.

Example...
Wow, this new solder I'm using sure sounds sweet. I wonder if the
molecules are lined up better allowing the electrons to pass through
more easily. Lets measure the high end response and see.

Mark
!