A Audio, hi-fi and car audio  forum. Audio Banter

Go Back   Home » Audio Banter forum » UK Audio Newsgroups » uk.rec.audio (General Audio and Hi-Fi)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.rec.audio (General Audio and Hi-Fi) (uk.rec.audio) Discussion and exchange of hi-fi audio equipment.

DBT a flawed method for evaluating Hi-Fi ?



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #15 (permalink)  
Old January 8th 05, 07:46 AM posted to uk.rec.audio
John Phillips
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 294
Default DBT a flawed method for evaluating Hi-Fi ?

In article , Don Pearce wrote:
On 07 Jan 2005 07:31:51 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

I remain puzzled about the postulated audible superiority of teflon
dielectrics (and occasionally paper-oil - for the right type or oil
I assume).

1. The published curves for dielectric absorption etc. show what I
think of as trifling differences compared to polypropylene,
polyethylene and some other dielectrics, There are several
dielectrics which should be audibly good enough to be
indistinguishable.

Do bear in mind that the tan d loss is in series with whatever circuit
impedances are present. A tan d of the odd ohm or so is massively
swamped by the many kilohms of the average circuit coupling situation.
So in most circumstances of capacitor use, tan d is simply not a
relevant issue.


I think we are in agreement here.

2. DA and the other usual capacitor defects are primarily linear effects
regardless of what people imply when they talk about smearing of
pulses. They result in ripples in frequency response (which are
mathematically equivalent to the "pulse smearing"). These ripples
can be made so small by good design of the circuits surrounding the
capacitor so it should be a non-issue. Loudspekers have ripples
in frequency response that are orders of magnitude worse.

Pulse smearing or dispersion is nothing to do with the quality of a
capacitor, but its value - or more specifically the type of filter in
which it is used. A Bessel filter and a Chebyshev filter might both
use the identical capacitor. The Bessel will not smear, the Chebyshev
will. This effect is found particularly in loudspeaker crossovers,
where filters are typically operating in the centre of the audio band.


Well, "pulse smearing" as used by those writers who see dielectric
absorption as a problem comes from the capacitor model with series R-C
networks in parallel with the capacitor. A certain proportion of the
LF capacitance comes from the parallel network and retains charge from
pulses which then "trickles out" or "smears". I use their words and
meanings here.

This parallel network certainly modifies the circuit's
frequency-domain behaviour a little but if 1% or less of the
capacitance is in DA then the modifications to frequency response
usually drop below what is normally thought of as audible. See
http://www.national.com/rap/Applicat...570,28,00.html, figures 2
and 4 for examples of capacitor models, and figure 7 for the effects of
different dielectrics.

--
John Phillips
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2025 Audio Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.