Looking for a "warm" sounding receiver (1 Viewer)

[Chu Gai]

Hell you've got email, why don't you do it instead and ask the esteemed Mr. Marsh how he performs his listening tests? bias controls? replication by third parties? or just the usual stuff we've been fed by StereoPhool for 20 odd years?

btw, i've been to my share of audio places in Manhattan and i've had the pleasure of making a saleperson or two look like a second rate huckster and second rate is being generous.

have a drink

 

[Jaime B]

Chu:


Read this article very carefully and if so desired go fight it off with its authors, Mrssrs. Walter G. Jung and Richard Marsh, you probably know more than they do...heh,heh.

I rest my case.

sayonara, Dexter!!!!

http://www.capacitors.com/picking_ca...rs/pickcap.htm

 

[Michael R Price]

I was just going to post that link. It is great for explaining capacitors' electrical parameters but does not seem to really correlate the measurements with listening tests. (Of course, no one has done that.) I read it when I found I had accidentally ordered the wrong type (read: huge polypropylene instead of normal mylar) of capacitors.

Capacitors seem to be the only passive component with easily measurable parameters, the most important of which seems to be the actual impedance and its deviation from an ideal capacitor, that could cause audible differences. Although other aspects (I don't understand as well) might be as important for coupling capacitors. The other one I could think of would be transformers, but there's not much debate there.

Yes, my CD player sounds better using only MKP capacitors in the signal path instead of electrolytics. Yes, film power-bypass capacitors improved the sound of my amplifier. No, I cannot confirm that through double blind testing. :b

 

[Chu Gai]

And here I was thinking you were going to lead me to an unimpeachable reference by individuals respected in the audio scientific community. Instead we have a mixture of science and alchemy.
Sheesh, old stuff and regretfully cited in several places on the web. If I was selling expensive capacitors, I'd make sure I tossed in a link to that article.

Let's begin by looking at Walter Jung, one of the authors. While Mr. Jung has done much good work and deservedly is owed credit and appreciation, inmatters of audio Mr. Jung exemplifies shoddy science. In that context he is a poster-child for being sloppy and employing approaches that are self-serving. While he has published various listening tests, not a single one to my knowledge has been able to be replicated once a modicum of bias controls are implemented. In other words, he is the equivalent of one half of the dynamic duo, Fleishman & Ponns of cold fusion fame. Shall I be more direct? His work on the audibility of capactitors borders on fraud and his appeal is largely to those who also carry out careless work. Work that can't be reproduced and that doesn't stand a modicum of scrutiny. Perhaps this is indicative of the really high-end audio, much of which is on display at the elite audio establishments and which may make StereoPhool's "If I only had the money" list. Is it any wonder that high end in many cases is synonymous with products of questionable accuracy developed by 'designers' with something up their ass and both hands in your pants searching for your credit limit?

I've no issues with Marsh's technical descriptions but again we come down to claims of audibility.

Some time back, Jung did perform some controlled tests at the Audiophile Society of Westchester however the results didn't corroborate his beliefs. Let's just bury those in some deep trench off the Atlantic.

Further work has been done in the area of the audibility of capacitors by Martin Collums (sic?) with John Atkinson back in the mid 80's which when correctly statistically analyzed, indicates an inability for listeners to differentiate between film and electrolytics.

First, as I stated earlier, there's no question, that certain types of capacitors work better in certain applications. The crux of the debate, as I understand it, is that if we substitute capacitor A with capacitor B (B being one of the audiophile capacitors) and both have identical capacitance it will result in either an audible benefit (the typical finding from anyone who's dropped 10's of dollars on a capacitor) or a change. There hasn't been any reliable proof and the investigations that have been carried out where bias controls have been implemented, suggest an inability of listeners to differentiate. If one is going to make assertions, then one must at least be able to point towards data that supports it. Your link does not merit this.

The mark of the huckster, the con-man, the self-appointed prophet is to toss in just enough credible science and stories to get you to listen and start nodding. That's the bait. Then they launch off into unsupported claims, wishful thinking, and pseudo-science. You've already been attracted to the bait. The setting of the hook is then much easier.

If you don't want to do controlled testing that's your prerogative but don't expect your conclusions to have profound merit and signficance. It's just another story.

 

[Chu Gai]

Did you measure the capacitance of the ones you replaced Michael?

 

[Angelo.M]

This was a lot more fun when we were talking about beer.

 

[DanaA]

Dana should have seen my girlfriend's picture by now. Wonder why he hasn't posted?

I would've posted sooner, but I wanted to track down Mom first to find out where you got her picture.

 

[Jason Brent]

Mmmmmmm, just had another Hula Hefewiezen

Capaciwhaaa??

This sure is good beer:b

Aloha

 

[Michael R Price]

Chu, what happened was my amplifiers have 2.2uf film capacitors as part of their input networks so I removed (replaced with jumpers) the 470uf electrolytics at the output of the CD player. I guess those were there to get response to 1Hz using low impedance headphones, or something.

I did not know Walt Jung had such bad credibility. What do you think of his work with power supply regulators?

 

[Chu Gai]

It's not that Jung has bad credibility in everything. He doesn't. But when you jump off into areas where you lack basic fundamental knowledge (audiology, psychoacoustics...the nature of human hearing), and then for whatever reasons, abandon critical thinking and that which you learned while a student regarding the protocols in the scientific method, you get god knows what. The correct thing to do, IMHO, is to admit you were wrong, state why, or state the limitations of your findings and the dangers of extrapolation. Mankind, I think, is pretty forgiving over honest mistakes even when they're overzealous.
The changes you made Michael seem to be of a more substantial nature and may well have affected your sound. There's little that the home experimenter can do to quantify this seeing as how the vast majority of us don't have test equipment. We do have the ability to burn test tones and do a rough frequency response before and after. That, IMHO, is the least we should do. For those that have a VOM, a rough approximation of things like noise reduction can also be done. If a mod has reduced hum, then that's something that can and should be quantified.
There's a fair amount of money to be made in tweaking and designer electronic components. I think you'd need to be more specific with his work on power supplies which I'd imagine have largely to do with tubes. Part of his problem as I see it lies in the inability to correlate claims with demonstrable proof. Now that doesn't mean that his suggestion for a particular op-amp is bad and quite likely won't break your pocketbook, but by the same token, there may be scores or hundreds of op-amps entirely suitable to a given application. Consider though, that perhaps more informed and practical knowledge might be obtained from DIY's involved in something like Ham Radio.
I know you're into tube amps and building things. Personally I think that's great. There's a great deal of satisfaction and personal pride in making something oneself and studying solid designs from competent companies is a good way to do that.