"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article
, Keith G
wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote
in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same
mental process that have people believing in God,
the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have a
shred of objective evidence that things sound
different, just their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that
then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the
word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive
to believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:

Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable


Actually, four....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perception

Different issues.


...none of them based on factual accuracy, as I perceive
it....

:-)

Obviously true for you, Keith.

Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in veridical perceptions.
Illusions are fun, but that's about it for them.



I suspect (correct me, if I'm wrong) that, in your haste to dash off yet
another sniffy little snipe at me, you have lost the plot somewhat..??

Please re-read the thread above and note where I responded to Serge to
merely report that there is a group of people 'not far from here' who have
*perceptions* that contradict what he had stated - I never said that I
shared those 'perceptions', I simply mentioned that I was surprised he
wasn't challenged on some of the points he has made. Note also that my
response to JL (also above) was merely to ask what word he would prefer to
'perceive', as he doesn't like it - although I have to say it is unambiguous
to me. Then you will see that the, er, veridiculous use of the word
'veridical' in this context is irrelevant.*

As to the rather vague "Some of the rest of us mostly" - you would do better
in my book if you had the balls to speak only for yourself and not try to
pad your opinions/arguments with the implied support/agreement of a group of
invisible colleagues. As to 'illusions' and 'fun' - that's what the whole
'audio' game is about, ain't it? There is only one person with the *best*
audio system (somewhere) in the world - everyone else is deluding themselves
to a greater or lesser degree, are they not....??


*IOW, don't try to flannel your way into an UK newsgroup with fancy English,
me auld china - especially not when this 'Englishman' went to an English
Grammar School that was older than your *country*...!! ;-)

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Incidentally, the name 'fullrange' is one of convenience - nobody I know
considers them to have the same bass extension as some of the
bigger/better mutliway speakers. Treble is another story - I've yet to
encounter 'normal' speakers with the extent and sweetness of treble
that you get with Fostex drivers, at least!!

ITYM 'mid range'. ;-)

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:

Serge Auckland wrote:

I'll accept that pots, capacitors, resistors etc. sound different
when I see objective measurements that indicate that there should be
a difference and the results of properly conducted double-blind tests
that show that there was a difference.


http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html

I've only had a quick look at the above, and the pages linked to it.
However they don't seem to me to be particularly relevant to the
question of capacitors normally having a 'sound' in normal use.

I was trying to provide information relating to the "I see objective
measurements that indicate that there should be a difference" part, not
the "sound" as such.

Ah. So you point was that types of capacitors may well differ in ways that
we have no particular reason to think have any effect on the audible
results when they are used appropriately in audio equipment? :-)

Serge: Was what you wrote above intended to be dealing with that point? I
read the above to mean "objective measurements", etc, that support the
argument that they would lead to a "different" sound in use...

Slainte,

Jim

Yes indeed. I asked if there were any measurements available that
indicated that an audible difference should be apparent, i.e. that
passing a signal through one type of capacitor had more noise or
distortion than another type. The oscillograms on the "sound of
Capacitors" page were of capacitors under conditions that would not
normally be encountered in audio circuits, and made the leap that
because some capacitors had curved oscillograms they should sound worse
without giving any reasons for it, only that they should. No
measurements were provided to support this point of view.

As mentioned earlier, in my design days, I was never aware of any
increases in distortion that resulted from capacitors in circuit, even
using electrolytics and tantalums (tantala?) provided they were well
polarised.

S.

On 2006-05-24, Nick Gorham wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham
wrote:

Serge Auckland wrote:


I'll accept that pots, capacitors, resistors etc. sound different when
I see objective measurements that indicate that there should be a
difference and the results of properly conducted double-blind tests
that show that there was a difference.

http://members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html

I've only had a quick look at the above, and the pages linked to it.
However they don't seem to me to be particularly relevant to the question
of capacitors normally having a 'sound' in normal use.

I was trying to provide information relating to the "I see objective
measurements that indicate that there should be a difference" part, not
the "sound" as such.

I noted, BTW, that the integrator used in the test setup employs another
capacitor which must be assumed to be linear for the test to work.
I hope the experimentor used a "good" linear capacitor there! Also
I see the X-axis (voltage) is capacitor-coupled to the 'scope.

Also I would point out that I believe the hysteresis observed is
not, per se, a linearity issue. I think hysteresis will arise from
parasitic series inductance or resistance, and also from dielectric
absorption. These may well be defects from ideality but in spite of the
article's title are not capacitor linearity issues.

--
John Phillips

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Incidentally, the name 'fullrange' is one of convenience - nobody I know
considers them to have the same bass extension as some of the
bigger/better mutliway speakers. Treble is another story - I've yet to
encounter 'normal' speakers with the extent and sweetness of treble
that you get with Fostex drivers, at least!!

ITYM 'mid range'. ;-)



OK Plowie, you tell me - I have recorded three versions each of two extracts
(Clips 09 and 15) from a 'test CD' for you (and anyone else who is
interested) as follows:

1) Straight computer rip to HDD using SoundForge.

2) Argos POS amp/CDP and Buschhorn speakers (Pinkies) **OPEN MIC**

3) Bez 300B SET/Marantz CD63 Mk 2 KI Sig CDP/Jericho speakers **OPEN MIC**

(The clue to each set is in the filename!)

First some tinkly bits:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Clip%2015.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Clip%2015.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Clip%2015.mp3

Then some over a wider treble range with a bit of percussion:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Clip%2009.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Clip%2009.mp3

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Clip%2009.mp3

Note that they have had no treatment whatsoever other than trimming to
length and that the mic used was the only one I have - a 'Vivanco EM216
lapel mic' set to mono because a) 'stereo' is a waste of time at this range
and b) I think the mic has got an iffy channel!!

Note also that the wumpa wumpa noises are on both the mic recordings and are
therefore almost certainly nothing to do with the audio replay side and
remember that the bass will sound 'hollow' and less extended due to the
method of recording.

(Sorry about the difference in sound levels and the 'open mic' hiss - you
know about that, but hey! - Ya can't have it all!! ;-)

Now, SS or valve, I reckon if that ain't enough treble for anyone (compared
to the straight CD rip) they need their ears syringed - your comments (and
those from anyone else) welcome but, as usual, not expected....

Enjoy...!!

:-)

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people "believe" things
sound different. It's the same mental process that have people
believing in God, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have
a shred of objective evidence that things sound different, just
their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that then opens up
all the ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the word
'perceive' in different ways and argue at cross-purposes... :-)


What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive to believe, do
they not?

Depends what you wish to describe. If the situation is that there is no
clear or reliable evidence either way that the physical soundfields differ
in a way that could be audible, then a term like 'believe' seems OK as it
allows that the idea may or may not be well-founded in physical reality.
However this is a difficult area for the reason I outline below.

The problem is that 'perception' can be taken by some people to mean
"something which I can perceive/sense' hence implying that a perceived
difference *must* be based on a physically real one being sensed. Whereas
others may assume it means the 'impression' people have even if it due to
imagination, error, wishful thinking, or some other factor completely
different to that being discussed.

If the evidence gives reason to think the idea *is* simply misguided or
incorrect, them something like 'impression' might be better.

Depends on the details of the case.


OK, this is difficult. Put simply:

If someone jacks his kit up on cubes of coconut husk or whatever (don't
dismiss that as impossible, btw) and tells me it has *improved* the sound, I
say he perceives a difference (real or imagined) and therefore believes
there's an improvement. OTOH, in the time-honoured ukra way (*unheard*) I
would not believe it - unless I heard the kit before and after and could
perceive a difference myself?

Does that help?

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in
message ...
In article
, Keith G
wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same
mental process that have people believing in God,
the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have a
shred of objective evidence that things sound
different, just their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that
then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the
word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive
to believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:

Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable


Actually, four....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perception

Different issues.


...none of them based on factual accuracy, as I perceive
it....

:-)

Obviously true for you, Keith.

Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.

I suspect (correct me, if I'm wrong) that, in your haste
to dash off yet another sniffy little snipe at me, you
have lost the plot somewhat..??

If you mean that I ignored your gratuitous detour into irrelevance Keith,
the answer would be yes.

Please re-read the thread above and note where I
responded to Serge to merely report that there is a group
of people 'not far from here' who have *perceptions* that
contradict what he had stated - I never said that I
shared those 'perceptions', I simply mentioned that I was
surprised he wasn't challenged on some of the points he
has made. Note also that my response to JL (also above)
was merely to ask what word he would prefer to
'perceive', as he doesn't like it - although I have to
say it is unambiguous to me. Then you will see that the,
er, veridiculous use of the word 'veridical' in this
context is irrelevant.*

Wordplay notwithstanding, it is you Keith that lost track of the context,
not I.

As to the rather vague "Some of the rest of us mostly" -
you would do better in my book if you had the balls to
speak only for yourself and not try to pad your
opinions/arguments with the implied support/agreement of
a group of invisible colleagues.

Let's see if you can get this, Keith:

Science and other attempts at reliable facts are about veridical
perceptions. Fiction, hype, and error is about giving too much credibility,
or the wrong kind of credibility to illusions.

As to 'illusions' and
'fun' - that's what the whole 'audio' game is about,
ain't it?

Pehaps for you, Keith - it may be all fun and games and who cares about
trying for accurate, lifelike reproduction.

There is only one person with the *best* audio
system (somewhere) in the world - everyone else is
deluding themselves to a greater or lesser degree, are
they not....??

Wrong. There are a certain number of very good systems, none of which should
pretend to be the best.

The concept of "best" is usually just an illusion. Reality is about many
things that approach but do not attain perfection.

*IOW, don't try to flannel your way into an UK newsgroup
with fancy English, me auld china - especially not when
this 'Englishman' went to an English Grammar School that
was older than your *country*...!! ;-)

Contrary to your ill-founded beliefs Keith, older is not necessarily better.
Attitudes like yours are one reason why the UK is no better than a
second-rate world power, and probably worse.

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Attitudes like yours are one reason why the UK is no better than a
second-rate world power, and probably worse.

Remind us again of the balance of payment problems in the US? And what the
dollar is worth against the pound? ;-)

--
*Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:
[snip]

As mentioned earlier, in my design days, I was never aware of any
increases in distortion that resulted from capacitors in circuit, even
using electrolytics and tantalums (tantala?) provided they were well
polarised.

My experience was similar. When I was designing amps for a day job, the
issue of 'electrolytic caps' and 'capacitor sound' became quite a trendy
one in the magazines, and with the gurus of the time.

I did some measurements which - in some cases/circumstances showed that
electrolytic caps could, indeed, produce measurable nonlinearities. However
I also found that:

1) provided that he caps were of good quality and had a fairly high
capacitance value, etc, then the level of nonlinearity was pretty small.
i.e. much the same results and conclusions which Doug Self published later
on when he did a more systematic examination of the topic.

2) That when I tested to see if anyone could tell the difference between
using an electrolytic cap from a 'fancy' non-electrolytic one as, say, an
input decoupling cap, no-one could if they only had the sounds to go on.
This required the caps to have the same value, chosen appropriately, but
once this was done, no-one I ever tried them on could tell 'talk from
splutter'. :-)

Having a preference for making up my own mind, based on evidence, I decided
to regard as dubious (or worthless) the claims made about this in magazine
reviews, etc...

Since that time, I've seen continued assertions and claims that people
*can* hear the differences. But not seen any reliable evidence that they
can, based only on sound, and when the caps are chosen and used in a
reasonably appropriate and relevant manner. I have seen various claims like
those on the pages Nick directed us to, though, but where the results seem
to of dubious relevance or reliability for reasons like those we have
discussed in this thread. There was a similar report by Martin Collums some
years ago, based on applying an excessively high ac current and terminal pd
to an electrolytic cap.

Thus I chose decent quality electrolytic caps in some places in the amps I
have designed, and use, and seem to have lost no sleep over this. The music
still sounds lovely to me. :-) I was listening to some Ravel performed by
Dutoit and the Montreal orchestra yesterday. Can't say I noticed the caps
getting in the way of the results sounding superbly natural and the
performance being exciting. I admit I changed the caps after 25 years of
use, but I am not sure I noticed any alteration as a result. :-)

However if someone *does* show they can tell one from another, by sound
alone, using caps and a situation which is relevant, then I'd love to know
about it. Although this does not mean a case where a cap is faulty or
obviously inappropriate for a reason which would be obvious for engineering
reasons. With any type of component, you can probably find some dreadfully
made examples...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , John Phillips
wrote:
On 2006-05-24, Nick Gorham wrote:


I noted, BTW, that the integrator used in the test setup employs another
capacitor which must be assumed to be linear for the test to work. I
hope the experimentor used a "good" linear capacitor there! Also I see
the X-axis (voltage) is capacitor-coupled to the 'scope.

Yes. These are examples of the reasons why the details of any such reported
'measurement' have to be treated with caution unless we know more about the
performance and calibration of the test system. (Also, as Arny pointed out
IIRC, the source using an audio transformer.)

However my reaction was to feel the above didn't matter once we'd
established that the actual conditions of the test were of dubious
relevance. No point in worrying about details if the test situation was
orders of magnitude different to those which are of actual interest to us.

Also I would point out that I believe the hysteresis observed is not,
per se, a linearity issue. I think hysteresis will arise from parasitic
series inductance or resistance, and also from dielectric absorption.
These may well be defects from ideality but in spite of the article's
title are not capacitor linearity issues.

Indeed. And may also in practice be orders of magnitude less significant
than implied by the curves when we move to a more relevant set of
conditions of use.

Alas, I have the impression that results like those on the pages Nick
directed us to are essentially produced on the basis, "We think the caps
sound different, so lets find a test which shows differences." This can
lead to a behaviour I have elsewhere called 'MOOM'. Mountains Out Of
Molehills. Another example being the way it became trendy some years ago to
claim that 'skin effect' or 'proximity effect' was a 'reason' for cables to
son=und different. Thus a real, but generally tiny, effect can be inflated
to be a 'reason' for a claim or belief...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html