Bipolar Caps

[Guest]

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

>
>
>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 ?
>

I contacted Jung after I wrote my paper about ceramic capacitors. My
paper made the point that the COG/NP0 types of ceramics are far superior
to the type that Jung/Marsh tested in their paper. Jung revised his
position, being complimentary to the COG/NP0 types in an AES paper that
he wrote later about RIAA phono preamps.

John Hardy
The John Hardy Co.
www.johnhardyco.com

 

[Guest]

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

"John Hardy" <johnwellshardy@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5YqdnZ4Tnaj8ByrcRVn-hw@comcast.com
>> 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 ??

If you haven't noticed, Marsh is as I type trying to sell golden hi fi
preamps.

>> Or is doing that a career destroying move ?
>>
>
> I contacted Jung after I wrote my paper about ceramic capacitors. My
> paper made the point that the COG/NP0 types of ceramics are far
> superior to the type that Jung/Marsh tested in their paper. Jung
> revised his position, being complimentary to the COG/NP0 types in an
> AES paper that he wrote later about RIAA phono preamps.

Congratulations. I tried to convey the same idea to him and got blown off.

 

[Guest]

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

"John Hardy"
> >
>>
>>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 ?
>>
>
> I contacted Jung after I wrote my paper about ceramic capacitors. My paper
> made the point that the COG/NP0 types of ceramics are far superior to the
> type that Jung/Marsh tested in their paper. Jung revised his position,
> being complimentary to the COG/NP0 types in an AES paper that he wrote
> later about RIAA phono preamps.
>
>


** That corrects almost nothing that was wrong and neatly hides doing even
that.







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

 

[Guest]

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

"Mark"
Phil Allison wrote:

>> >
>> > 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 .......
>
>

** No Mark - your advice was BAD.

When you think you hear something unexpected going on then the NEXT step is
to do a scientifically valid listening test - best not to use yourself as
the subject for this either.

The method you espoused ( ie reaching for exotic test methods) is exactly
what has led to all the snake oil products and myths we have now.





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

 

[Guest]

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

"Phil Allison" <philallison@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:31pse0F3c9gt0U1@individual.net
>
> When you think you hear something unexpected going on then the NEXT
> step is to do a scientifically valid listening test - best not to
> use yourself as the subject for this either.

Agreed.

> The method you espoused ( ie reaching for exotic test methods) is
> exactly what has led to all the snake oil products and myths we have
> now.

Disagred. The exotic testing methods and the search for them are in essence
the cover stories for the snake oil.

IOW, my hobby-horse snake oil is so sophisticated that it makes a
mind-blowing difference in sound quality in almost any audio system, but
generally-accepted listening test technology can't detect even a trace of
it.

 

[Guest]

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

"John Hardy"
> Phil:
>
> It would be nice to see an "update" about capacitors from Walt Jung. But
> at least I got some movement from him in the area I was concerned about.
> He has a web site:
>
> http/home.comcast.net/~walt-jung/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
>
> His AES Preprint "Topology Considerations for RIAA Phono Preamplifiers
> (AES Preprint 1719)" is at:
>
> http/home.comcast.net/~walt-jung/wsb/PDFs/Topology_Considerations_for_RIAA_Phono_Preamps.pdf
>
> The comments about COG ceramics are on page 2. He has an e-mail address,
> so you could probably send him a note and work some of your magic on him.
>


** What ?? Try to persuade him to make a reputation and career destroying
move ?

Overwhelming contrary evidence has been published by numerous others -
plus commercial practice has treated the paper as of zero value.

Only the scam artists and hobbyists put any faith it now.




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

 

[Guest]

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

Phil Allison wrote:
>
> Overwhelming contrary evidence has been published by numerous others -
> plus commercial practice has treated the paper as of zero value.

Just a few citations would be nice!

Have you seen the series by Cyril Bateman on this in 2003? Did he
make the same error? It was a much more extensive set of measurements
than J&M. Unfortunately I don't have it in front of me and I don't
recall the details.

Thanks,
Tom

--

To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.

 

[Guest]

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

"Tom Loredo"
> Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>> Overwhelming contrary evidence has been published by numerous others -
>> plus commercial practice has treated the paper as of zero value.
>
> Just a few citations would be nice!


** Which unsupported assertions in the Jung-Mash article did you want
de-bunked?


> Have you seen the series by Cyril Bateman on this in 2003?

** Yep.


>Did he make the same error?

** What error ?

You need to learn what the word specific means.


> It was a much more extensive set of measurements
> than J&M. Unfortunately I don't have it in front of me and I don't
> recall the details.


** Measurements are not he issue - correct interpretation of the results
IS.




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

 

[Guest]

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

Phil Allison wrote:
>
> >Did he make the same error?
>
> ** What error ?
>
> You need to learn what the word specific means.

You need to develop a memory. The only *specific* error you mentioned
in your own posts in this thread---the coupling capacitor.

-Tom

--

To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.

 

[Guest]

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

"Tom Loredo"
> Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>> >Did he make the same error?
>>
>> ** What error ?
>>
>> You need to learn what the word specific means.
>
> You need to develop a memory.


** You need to learn to read as well as write - dickhead.


> The only *specific* error you mentioned
> in your own posts in this thread---the coupling capacitor.


** The whole Jung / Marsh article was about damn *coupling capacitors* -
plus did not use the word "error" in any post in this thread. Not only do
you need to learn to be specific - you also need to learn to post UNDER
the actual words of a post you are alluding to.



** Which unsupported assertions in the Jung-Mash article did you want
de-bunked?

** Measurements are not the issue - correct interpretation of the results
IS.




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