This might be of interest

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=6667

--
Nick

Nick Gorham wrote:
This might be of interest

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=6667


He dropped some rather interesting info when he was talking about the
blind testing "70% of the people in most of the tests preferred our
capacitors". It is the word "most" that is telling. Suppose by most he
meant perhaps as many as 70%.... Then just under half of the people
tested would have preferred his caps.

He is also talking about something rather different than most people
when considering the sound of the capacitor - he is talking literally;
the capacitor is physically making sounds. All you need to do is pop it
in a box, and you won't hear it.

d

Don Pearce wrote:

Nick Gorham wrote:

This might be of interest

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=6667


He dropped some rather interesting info when he was talking about the
blind testing "70% of the people in most of the tests preferred our
capacitors". It is the word "most" that is telling. Suppose by most he
meant perhaps as many as 70%.... Then just under half of the people
tested would have preferred his caps.

Well, I head it as the fact that in blind tests most people prefered the
low resonance caps (ie more than 50%), and in some tests up to 70%
prefered them.



He is also talking about something rather different than most people
when considering the sound of the capacitor - he is talking literally;
the capacitor is physically making sounds. All you need to do is pop it
in a box, and you won't hear it.

d

Wonderfull bit of not seeming to want to listen Don. He said that as
well as causing a audible difference under blind testing, one of the
ways the effect can be demonstrated is that the caps produce sound.

There are more details here

http://www.icwltd.co.uk/claritycap/download/news2.pdf

--
Nick

Nick Gorham wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

Nick Gorham wrote:

This might be of interest

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=6667


He dropped some rather interesting info when he was talking about the
blind testing "70% of the people in most of the tests preferred our
capacitors". It is the word "most" that is telling. Suppose by most he
meant perhaps as many as 70%.... Then just under half of the people
tested would have preferred his caps.

Well, I head it as the fact that in blind tests most people prefered the
low resonance caps (ie more than 50%), and in some tests up to 70%
prefered them.


No, I listened again - I had it right.


He is also talking about something rather different than most people
when considering the sound of the capacitor - he is talking literally;
the capacitor is physically making sounds. All you need to do is pop
it in a box, and you won't hear it.

d

Wonderfull bit of not seeming to want to listen Don. He said that as
well as causing a audible difference under blind testing, one of the
ways the effect can be demonstrated is that the caps produce sound.

There are more details here

http://www.icwltd.co.uk/claritycap/download/news2.pdf


But which effect is being heard in the blind test? I note he didn't
claim double blind. And having read that paper, I can't say I'm too
impressed, apart of course from the obvious fact that Parameter 1 should
be C and Parameter 2 about 1.13. How could I not have known that already?

Please don't be too impressed by this. When someone passes off an advert
as an academic paper, you really must smell a rat.

d

Don Pearce wrote:


But which effect is being heard in the blind test? I note he didn't
claim double blind.

What does ITU-R BS.1116-1 specify?

--
Nick

Nick Gorham wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:


But which effect is being heard in the blind test? I note he didn't
claim double blind.

What does ITU-R BS.1116-1 specify?


Something he can't possibly have done - a reference. That would be the
same speaker, but with no caps of any kind in it. And of course it would
have to be exactly the same speaker - the differences between two
samples of driver would be much bigger than what he is describing.

The BS.1116 system would let you listen to the reference, then each of
the two alternative capacitors and make your choice on which you prefer.


d

Nick Gorham wrote:

This might be of interest

No they don't. But only crappy ones.

High-K ceramics are fabulously non-linear. Med-K ones are only slightly
better. But no competent designer would use them in an audio path.

As for plastic film dielectrics, I doubt STRONGLY there's even any
remote hope of an audible difference.

However using the right VALUE and considering TOLERANCES is VERY
important and may mislead people into wandering up blind alleys.

Heck, even zero-bias electrolytics are audibly blameless when used
corrrectly. That's where an experienced designer's skill counts.

Graham

Nick Gorham wrote:

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=6667

A load of complete and unmitigated ******** designed purely to extract
money from your wallet. As is almost everything 'audiophile'.

Graham

Don Pearce wrote:

Please don't be too impressed by this. When someone passes off an advert
as an academic paper, you really must smell a rat.

I think the word you meant was FRAUD.

Graham

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
Nick Gorham wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

Nick Gorham wrote:

This might be of interest

http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=6667


No, I listened again - I had it right.

I presume the above URL sends a 'stream' of some kind. My browser simply
tells me that it doesn't have a Flash plugin enabled and the page text
seems void of info.


There are more details here

http://www.icwltd.co.uk/claritycap/download/news2.pdf

I read the above, and then checked the company website. This has a PDF of
an EW article that says much the same. Since neither give much real detail
I've tried emailing to see if I can contact Paul Dodds. He is, apparently,
a 'Senior Engineer' with the company.


Please don't be too impressed by this. When someone passes off an advert
as an academic paper, you really must smell a rat.

I may be able to come to a better conclusion when I've had more data. EG
from the refs given at the end of the above PDF document.

But FWIW I gave up reading EW some years ago as it seemed to become full of
publicity material masquerading as technical articles. This happened when
EW stopped paying for submissions, and is the obvious consequence of such a
course. However my Uni Library still get EW, so I'll also have a look when
I get a chance to see if there has been any reaction in the form of
letters, etc.

I also went to the Salford Uni site, but the only link there I found for
the co-worker gave a 404.

So far as I can recall, it isn't 'news' that caps can have mechanical
resonances. The claim that is interesting is that they are audible. But to
decide, I'd need to know a lot more about how the 'results' were obtained.
For reasons like those others have already mentioned.

Interesting, though... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html