Bipolar Caps

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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."

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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."

 

[Guest]

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."

 

[mark]

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

 

[Guest]

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

DeserTBoB <desertb@rglobal.net> wrote:
>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.

A combination of the distortion spectrum and the damping effects due to
the higher effective output impedance of the McIntosh amp probably will
go a long way to explaining them.

BUT, compare that tube McIntosh with the solid-state McIntosh 2505
or the much newer McIntosh MC501, which use an autotransformer on the
output stage. I find that they sound more like the tube MC275 than they
do a conventional solid-state amp.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

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

On 8 Dec 2004 09:11:20 -0500, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> 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

Mr?? Damn . . now I feel OLD. *chuckles*

The punchline in the article I read--from the '70s, iirc--was that the
Engineering types were measuring things in the linear range and
declaring the superiority of SS, whereas audio types were listening in
the distortion region.

Once the EEs started measuring in the same place AEs were listening, the
differences were evident. Transformers were one factor, but there were
other things happening.

 

[Guest]

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

U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles <cdkrug@aol.com> wrote:
>
>The punchline in the article I read--from the '70s, iirc--was that the
>Engineering types were measuring things in the linear range and
>declaring the superiority of SS, whereas audio types were listening in
>the distortion region.

That's kind of oversimplified.
What you need is:

W. M. Leach, Jr., "Transient IM Distortion in Power Amplifiers," Audio,
vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 34-41, February 1975.

and

W. M. Leach, Jr., "Suppression of Slew-Rate and Transient IM Distortions in
Audio Power Amplifiers," Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 25,
no. 7, pp. 466-473,July/August 1977.

--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[mark]

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

Phil Allison wrote:
> "Mark"
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> ** You missed out the most crucial step Mark - first it needs
to be
> established beyond doubt that listeners ARE actually detecting a
difference
> and not simply imagining it.
>
> A scientifically valid listening procedure MUST be used - the ABX
method
> is one.
>

Well I agree with that too. I was just trying to be polite.
What I really wanted to say was...
If someone "THINKS THEY CAN HEAR a difference due to .......


Mark

 

[Guest]

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

"Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102542413.479843.16940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
>
> 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.

IME that first step of actually hearing a difference can be a big one.

Usenet and the web are full of reports of audible differences that simply
aren't credible. If you go around and try to verify these things with DBTs
as I have, you find a lot of misses, and very few hits.

For another thing, people lose track of quantification and the meaning of
it. For example I found a web site that purported to prove the existence of
audible differences between capacitor dielectrics, by showing VI plots made
with a signal on the order of 70 volts rms dropped across the UUTs. Under
those extremely unrealistic conditions, only hi-K ceramic capactors seemed
to show really bad results.

> 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.

Yeah, whatever.

 

[Guest]

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

Stephen Sank 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".

How much do you know about designing with magnetics ?

I'll venture not a lot.

Seems you're happy to talk nonsense on this subject too !


Graham

 

[Guest]

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

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41B7D061.2EDB3EC8@hotmail.com
> Stephen Sank 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".
>
> How much do you know about designing with magnetics ?
>
> I'll venture not a lot.
>
> Seems you're happy to talk nonsense on this subject too !

With all due respect for Sank's skills with mics, he seems to have confused
Rosenberg's religious writings about tubes with technology.

 

[Guest]

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

"Scott Dorsey"
>
> What you need is:
>
> W. M. Leach, Jr., "Transient IM Distortion in Power Amplifiers," Audio,
> vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 34-41, February 1975.
>
> and
>
> W. M. Leach, Jr., "Suppression of Slew-Rate and Transient IM Distortions
> in
> Audio Power Amplifiers," Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol.
> 25,
> no. 7, pp. 466-473,July/August 1977.



** Once found - best burn or trash them.

TIM and SID were imposters.




............. Phil

 

[Guest]

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

"Mark"
>
> 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.


** You missed out the most crucial step Mark - first it needs to be
established beyond doubt that listeners ARE actually detecting a difference
and not simply imagining it.

A scientifically valid listening procedure MUST be used - the ABX method
is one.

This is another, rather quicker way: http/sound.westhost.com/absw.htm



>
> Example...
> Wow, this new solder I'm using sure sounds sweet.


** A common wild assumption based on emotional responses to music.


> I wonder if the
> molecules are lined up better allowing the electrons to pass through
> more easily.


** Typical fool's next illogical step


> Lets measure the high end response and see.


** Then you are on the slippery slope to "inventing" another snake oil
product.



................ Phil

 

[Guest]

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

"Arny Krueger"
> "Mark"
>>
>> 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.
>
> IME that first step of actually hearing a difference can be a big one.
>
> Usenet and the web are full of reports of audible differences that simply
> aren't credible. If you go around and try to verify these things with DBTs
> as I have, you find a lot of misses, and very few hits.
>
> For another thing, people lose track of quantification and the meaning of
> it. For example I found a web site that purported to prove the existence
> of audible differences between capacitor dielectrics, by showing VI plots
> made with a signal on the order of 70 volts rms dropped across the UUTs.
> Under those extremely unrealistic conditions, only hi-K ceramic capactors
> seemed to show really bad results.


** This the one ?? http/members.aol.com/sbench102/caps.html

The famous Jung / March travesty of science ( see
http/www.capacitors.com/portals/Information.html ) was no better.


BTW Was it Marsh or Jung who made all the wild assertions re cap sound in
that pile of trash ?

Have either ever attempted to justify, retract or apologise ??

Or is doing that a career destroying move ?





............. Phil