Recapping Monitor 5 & 7A's

heiney9

I am quite certain there is nothing you can teach me. Your type of lecturing and lack of real world experience is certainly incongruent with my experiences and knowledge. You certainly have a right to your opinions, tests and conclusions. But that doesn't mean I have to agree or even entertain the results of your flawed hypothesis.

Just because you can act arrogant doesn't mean what you are peddling has any more merit than anything else posted on this audio board.

With that I'm done here because we are on opposite sides, and the chasm will never be bridged.

H9

DarqueKnight

jcandy wrote: »

How do you account for the fact that despite stories like this, no differences are heard once the testing is truly blind?

The results show that people cannot even do better than random, and the fact is that the Daytons are as good (or better) than much more expensive caps in this application.

I was not aware of this test until you mentioned it and I have not read it. Was the test conducted under realisitic stereophonic listening conditions? If so, I would be interested in reading it.

Joe08867

Thanks for the write up DarqueKnight. It is nice to see someone actually do all the research needed including listening to them.

Amazing!

TennMan

jcandy wrote: »

Yes, all speakers are the same.

JC, I'm relatively new here. I have been following what you post with an open mind, always giving you the benefit of the doubt when I wondered if what you were saying was in line with what makes common sense. With that one statement you have changed the way I think about your posts. If you think all speakers are the same you can't be thinking rationally and are indeed only looking for an argument. You won't get that argument from me so there is no need for a reply.

DarqueKnight

Joe08867 wrote: »

It is nice to see someone actually do all the research needed including listening to them.

I actually haven't finished this project yet. Some of the instruments I used at home do not have the sensitivity of laboratory grade instruments, although good results were obtained. Therefore, I will be repeating the measurements in my lab at work.

Another question I want to investigate is whether performance tests on capacitors are meaningful if the capacitors are not yet burned in. One thing that I did with the inductor upgrades that I have not yet done with capacitor upgrades was taking measurements prior to and after burn in.

More later...

heiney9

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I actually haven't finished this project yet. Some of the instruments I used at home do not have the sensitivity of laboratory grade instruments, although good results were obtained. Therefore, I will be repeating the measurements in my lab at work.

Another question I want to investigate is whether performance tests on capacitors are meaningful if the capacitors are not yet burned in. One thing that I did with the inductor upgrades that I have not yet done with capacitor upgrades was taking measurements prior to and after burn in.

More later...

You mean you can't sit at home with consumer grade equipment and take a couple uncorrelated measurements over a few days and have reliable results? Who would have even entertained that aspect of the experiment being of upper most importance; and you listened to them? I don't see you jumping to any hasty conclusions.

H9

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote: »

You mean you can't sit at home with consumer grade equipment and take a couple uncorrelated measurements over a few days and have reliable results?

That depends on what you are measuring. In the case of high quality metalized polypropylene film capacitors, the measurable and sonic differences between brands are often subtle and more sensitive measuring instruments may be required. I was intrigued by the fact that the AudioCap PPMF caps measured so closely to the Sonicap Gen I's, yet there were immediately apparent sonic differences between them.

In the case of the Solen 14 AWG 16 mH inductors and the Northcreek 14 AWG 16 mH inductors used in my CRS+'s (report here), the measured and sonic differences between them were so glaring that I had no reason to take them to the lab. The Solen and Northcreek inductors had nearly the same deviation from rated inductance value, nearly the same measured DCR and nearly the same size and weight. Yet, the Solen inductors sounded and measured much better right out of their shipping boxes than the Northcreek inductors did after over 100 hours of burn in.

heiney9 wrote: »

...and you listened to them?

Of course I listened to them. You can't measure something and know how it will sound. That is like saying you can read a cake recipe and know how the cake will taste. Who in their right mind would say, or even imply, such an absurdity?

Measurements provide some design and evaluative insight, but just as the proof of the cake is in the eating, the proof of the stereophonic audio is in the listening.

Such Good Science.

jcandy

TennMan wrote: »

JC, I'm relatively new here. I have been following what you post with an open mind, always giving you the benefit of the doubt when I wondered if what you were saying was in line with what makes common sense. With that one statement you have changed the way I think about your posts.

That "one statement" was (obviously, I thought) a joke in response to a poster who suggested that I think all speakers are the same. Obviously, there are two types of speakers, the left and right one.

TennMan

jcandy wrote: »

That "one statement" was (obviously, I thought) a joke in response to a poster who suggested that I think all speakers are the same. Obviously, there are two types of speakers, the left and right one.

OK. Fair enough. If I could I would edit my last post to remove the first part and have it simply say: "(you) are indeed only looking for an argument. You won't get that argument from me so there is no need for a reply."

jcandy

DarqueKnight wrote: »

For the 20 uF capacitors, my findings concurred with jcandy's that the Sonicap's had the most deviation from nominal value.

Interesting. Over what frequency range?

DarqueKnight wrote: »

However, there are other factors which affect a capacitor's performance in an audio circuit besides deviation from rated value. Three of these are transient response

A transient is a sum of fourier harmonics, so a frequency-dependent sweep of the impedance is in effect a complete transient analysis.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

noise performance

Although I have heard of capacitative noise reduction, I was not aware that noise was ever a problem with audio capacitors. Frequency-dependent measurements show an extremely noiseless response in all the poly. caps I measured.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

and dissipation factor.

which is a combination of series resistance, leakage (parallel) resistance, and dielectric loss. All can be backed out of my impedance scans with some clever curve-fitting using well-known circuit models.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

With the 20 uF caps, the Sonicaps had the most deviation from nominal value (20.73 uF), yet sounded the best.

I think the point is, how did the actual 20Hz-20kHz response look? This scan will effectively contain all required information about transient response and dissipation factor. In my scans, the metalized poly caps were very flat over the entire FR. In essence, they were nearly all perfect capacitors, only they differed in actual capacitance. As FGTV suggested earlier, L-R driver impedance differences are larger than impedance anomalies caused by different poly caps.

DON73

I've been doing a lot more reading here than posting but I need to ask this question. Polk sold a lot of speakers even with the 1000, 2000 and 2500 tweeters that have been trashed and condemned in several posts. How did they do that? Were all of us who bought these speakers back in the 80s and early 90s completely tone deaf? My Monitor 10s and 5s have the 2500 tweeters and they sound good to me and I don't intend to replace them with the RDO 198s that so many here think are much better. I realize that improvements can be made but how do improvements turn these original tweeters into something people can't even listen to?


Gotta stop reading here so much or soon I'll be convinced to toss out all my old Polks and buy the latest and greatest which will be out soon:biggrin::biggrin:
I'll just continue to enjoy what I have along with a little Makers Mark which can smooth out the highs of the big Sansuis even.:cool:

heiney9

DON73 wrote: »

I've been doing a lot more reading here than posting but I need to ask this question. Polk sold a lot of speakers even with the 1000, 2000 and 2500 tweeters that have been trashed and condemned in several posts. How did they do that? Were all of us who bought these speakers back in the 80s and early 90s completely tone deaf? My Monitor 10s and 5s have the 2500 tweeters and they sound good to me and I don't intend to replace them with the RDO 198s that so many here think are much better. I realize that improvements can be made but how do improvements turn these original tweeters into something people can't even listen to?


Gotta stop reading here so much or soon I'll be convinced to toss out all my old Polks and buy the latest and greatest which will be out soon:biggrin::biggrin:
I'll just continue to enjoy what I have along with a little Makers Mark which can smooth out the highs of the big Sansuis even.:cool:

Ford and GM sold a lot cars in the 70's and 80's.........aren't the current offerings better in every way? Technology moves rapidly and improvements are made. Why not take advantage of those improvements? Also remember gear and source material is different, most likely better than it was 20 years ago.

Don't know about you but I think a Chrysler 300 is much better than a Reliant K car.

H9

jcandy

DON73 wrote: »

I've been doing a lot more reading here than posting but I need to ask this question. Polk sold a lot of speakers even with the 1000, 2000 and 2500 tweeters that have been trashed and condemned in several posts. How did they do that? Were all of us who bought these speakers back in the 80s and early 90s completely tone deaf? My Monitor 10s and 5s have the 2500 tweeters and they sound good to me and I don't intend to replace them with the RDO 198s that so many here think are much better. I realize that improvements can be made but how do improvements turn these original tweeters into something people can't even listen to?

I did FR comparisons between SL2000T and RDO-194 in the SDA2B and there was about as much difference as taking the grills on and off, and well within the realm of "preference" versus better/worse. Of course the mystics started screaming bloody murder.

DarqueKnight

jcandy wrote: »

Although I have heard of capacitative noise reduction, I was not aware that noise was ever a problem with audio capacitors.

This explains a lot. Thanks.

FTGV

jcandy wrote: »

Although I have heard of capacitative noise reduction, I was not aware that noise was ever a problem with audio capacitors.

While I'm aware of thermal(Johnson)noise that can be generated in resistors ,noise as it relates to high quality film capacitors is new terminology to me as well.I would be interested in the methodology used to quantify this aspect of capacitor performance

As FGTV suggested earlier, L-R driver impedance differences are larger than impedance anomalies caused by different poly caps.

While thats also likely the case my comment was in reference to frequency response.Even different samples of very good tweeters can have variances in their frequency responses of >1db over parts of their range.If significant differences occur near the crossover frequency or in the stop band then IMO they would swamp any response errors that might occur from using a (Jcandy's example) 8.025 uf cap in place of an 8.2 uf.

jcandy

DarqueKnight wrote: »

This explains a lot. Thanks.

So, can you elaborate?

DON73

heiney9 wrote: »

Ford and GM sold a lot cars in the 70's and 80's.........aren't the current offerings better in every way? Technology moves rapidly and improvements are made. Why not take advantage of those improvements? Also remember gear and source material is different, most likely better than it was 20 years ago.

Don't know about you but I think a Chrysler 300 is much better than a Reliant K car.

H9

I understand that improvements are being made constantly but I can't see why an RDO tweeter that may be better can turn the 2500 into trash.
I'll reserve comments on the Chrysler 300

heiney9

Anyone who says "trash" is overstating. The SL2500 and 3000 were much better than the sl2000. The RD0's are better yet than the all of them but to a lesser degree between the 2500/3000 than the sl2000. Some of the issues with the sl2000 simply have to do with age exacerbating the degradation of sound.

H9

F1nut

troll wrote:

Although I have heard of capacitative noise reduction, I was not aware that noise was ever a problem with audio capacitors.

From the pages at Sonic Craft by one of the most respected authorities on all things capacitor related......

The Sonicap is well balanced and true to the source. The word "neutral" is so loosely (and incorrectly) used, that I prefer the term "balanced". While capacitors suffer from more noise (high distortion) than most audio components, the Sonicap exhibits very low noise and parasitics.

jcandy

F1nut wrote: »

From the pages at Sonic Craft by one of the most respected authorities on all things capacitor related......

The Sonicap is well balanced and true to the source. The word "neutral" is so loosely (and incorrectly) used, that I prefer the term "balanced". While capacitors suffer from more noise (high distortion) than most audio components, the Sonicap exhibits very low noise and parasitics.

LOL. Please explain what "noise" is, in the above context. Is it any non-capacitative effect? Is it a specific non-capacitative effect like leakage resistance? It is gnome yodelling?

Do tell!

F1nut

Mechanical resonance, which you would have known if you knew a damn thing about capacitors in the first place, sport!

jcandy

F1nut wrote: »

Mechanical resonance, which you would have known if you knew a damn thing about capacitors in the first place, sport!

I know quite a bit about capacitors, actually. It wonder, why was the completely non-specific word "noise" used rather than "mechanical resonance" or perhaps just resonance. I think its because all you capacitor mystics spent too much time at frat parties and not enough time in physics class. I strongly suspect you don't really know what your favourite power-words actually mean.

Here are the facts: the recent work on mechanical resonance in metalized film capacitors (by Duncan, et. al. AES 2009) is simply a measurement of the vibration of the capacitor itself, NOT a resonance that occurs in the audio signal. If you think there is any actual scientific work that connects the mechanical resonance(s) of a film capacitor to some anomaly in the capacitors capacitance, please point it out to me.

DarqueKnight

F1nut wrote: »

Mechanical resonance, which you would have known if you knew a damn thing about capacitors in the first place, sport!

Oh F1, is it really true that an electrical part like a capacitor would have some mechanical resonance that would introduce audible distortion? It's hard to believe because it sounds so, so, so, mystical.

I vividly and fondly recall that, when I preparing to do my first speaker crossover modification, a capacitor mystic earnestly abjured me to "strap down" the big, juicy film capacitors that would be replacing those nasty old electrolytics.

See below how I have held to that teaching to this very day? The crossovers of my venerable SDA SRS 1.2TL's are full of big, juicy Sonicap polypropylene film capacitors which are not only strapped down, but are also secured to the board with Scotch Heavy-Duty Mounting Tape (the gray stuff peeking out from under the caps).

Little juicy straps for big juicy caps!

With regard to alleged capacitor mysticism, there are a few papers on capacitor noise that the interested reader may want to review. The first paper, by Dr. Philip Duncan et al, is an AES convention paper that offers a fairly mathematically rigorous treatment of the subject: "Forces in cylindrical metalized film audio capacitors". This paper can be accessed free of charge at this link:

http://www.linearaudio.nl/Miscellaneous/forces in capacitors.pdf

Now, please be advised that AES convention papers are not rigorously peer reviewed. Nevertheless, the Duncan et al paper seems to go to some length to mathematically justify their position.

The Duncan paper also cites several relevant references from IEEE journals. IEEE journals are very rigorously peer reviewed.

Now, I fully realize and understand that some people may not want to consider the information provided by the delusional capacitor mystics at Club Polk regarding capacitor noise. The link below provides Dr. Philip Duncan's contact information at the University of Salford, UK. He seems to have done some credible research in this area.

Dr. Philip Duncan profile at University of Salford UK

jcandy wrote: »

I know quite a bit about capacitors, actually. It wonder, why was the completely non-specific word "noise" used rather than "mechanical resonance" or perhaps just resonance. I think its because all you capacitor mystics spent too much time at frat parties and not enough time in physics class. I strongly suspect you don't really know what your favourite power-words actually mean.

This statement reflects poorly on your character. Why criticize us for being non-specific if we were not in error? Some things are assumed to be well understood by those who purport to have expertise in a technical area and who disparage others who are alleged to engage in audio mysticism.

jcandy wrote: »

Here are the facts: the recent work on mechanical resonance in metalized film capacitors (by Duncan, et. al. AES 2009) is simply a measurement of the vibration of the capacitor itself, NOT a resonance that occurs in the audio signal. If you think there is any actual scientific work that connects the mechanical resonance(s) of a film capacitor to some anomaly in the capacitors capacitance, please point it out to me.

We capacitor mystics are not concerned with anomalies in a capacitor's capacitance, but rather, with a capacitor introducing anomolies in a music signal's waveform.

Here is a quote from the Duncan AES 2009 paper (p. 9) that appears to contradict your statement that capacitor mechanical resonance does not affect audible frequencies:

"Experiments have been carried out where capacitors have undergone rapid discharge with the discharge voltage and acoustic emissions measured and recorded as a function of time. Analysis of the time domain data shows mechanical resonance peaks in the upper audio frequency band."

From p. 7:

"These results show a clear resonant peak for each of the capacitors in the upper audio frequency band between 14kHz and 22kHz indicative of a mechanical resonance at that frequency."



More later....

Such Good Science

---

Such Good Mysticism Too!!!

jcandy

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Here is a quote from the Duncan AES 2009 paper (p. 9) that appears to contradict your statement that capacitor mechanical resonance does not affect audible frequencies:

"Experiments have been carried out where capacitors have undergone rapid discharge with the discharge voltage and acoustic emissions measured and recorded as a function of time. Analysis of the time domain data shows mechanical resonance peaks in the upper audio frequency band."

You don't understand the paper at all, do you? The measurements of mechanical resonance are measurements of the "mechanical vibrations of the capacitor body" (page 2). There is no actual link demonstrated between this mechanical resonance, and the electrical properties of the capacitor.

Aside from the mechanical measurements of the vibrating capacitor, they performed electrical measurements (the usual ESR and dissipation factor), with the conclusion "the measurements were carried out using a Wayne Kerr 6430B component analyzer and all results obtained showed very similar trends with little or no deviation from theoretical predictions." Big surprise there, hey?

Get yourself a cup of coffee, sit down, and actually read the paper. Then we can talk about the Emperor and his clothes.

DarqueKnight

jcandy wrote: »

You don't understand the paper at all, do you? The measurements of mechanical resonance are measurements of the "mechanical vibrations of the capacitor body" (page 2). There is no actual link demonstrated between this mechanical resonance, and the electrical properties of the capacitor.

Aside from the mechanical measurements of the vibrating capacitor, they performed electrical measurements (the usual ESR and dissipation factor), with the conclusion "the measurements were carried out using a Wayne Kerr 6430B component analyzer and all results obtained showed very similar trends with little or no deviation from theoretical predictions." Big surprise there, hey?

Get yourself a cup of coffee, sit down, and actually read the paper. Then we can talk about the Emperor and his clothes.

The only "big surprise" is that when you are clearly shown to be wrong, you still cling to your "beliefs" with religious fervor and tenacity.

CLARIFICATION: The underlined quote you cited above is not from the Duncan et al 2009 paper. It is from Duncan et al 2008, "Audio capacitors. Myth or reality?" Please try to keep your references straight. Otherwise, it makes it appear that you really didn't actually read the paper(s).

You specifically said, regarding the Duncan 2009 paper:

jcandy wrote: »

Here are the facts: the recent work on mechanical resonance in metalized film capacitors (by Duncan, et. al. AES 2009) is simply a measurement of the vibration of the capacitor itself, NOT a resonance that occurs in the audio signal.

I specifically pointed out:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Here is a quote from the Duncan AES 2009 paper (p. 9) that appears to contradict your statement that capacitor mechanical resonance does not affect audible frequencies:

"Experiments have been carried out where capacitors have undergone rapid discharge with the discharge voltage and acoustic emissions measured and recorded as a function of time. Analysis of the time domain data shows mechanical resonance peaks in the upper audio frequency band."

From p. 7:

"These results show a clear resonant peak for each of the capacitors in the upper audio frequency band between 14kHz and 22kHz indicative of a mechanical resonance at that frequency."

jcandy wrote: »

You don't understand the paper at all, do you?

It is obvious that it is you who does not understand the paper. You can engage in all the face-saving, side-stepping, red herring tactics you want, but the facts are:

1. You clearly did not have any knowledge, and understanding, of the noise generating mechanisms in capacitors until it was specifically pointed out to you. This was verified by your rash erroneous assumption that the authors did not correlate mechanical vibration to audible noise.

2. The authors show a clear link between mechanical noise in a capacitor and the creation of audible noise, contrary to your erroneous statement that they did not address this. Did YOU read the paper?

3. For audio applications, we can assume that established, reputable manufacturers of capacitors know how to make them with good electrical properties. Therefore, as long as the capacitor is within its tolerance from rated value we do not need to be overly concerned with the electrical properties of the capacitor. We do need to be concerned about the audible effects of those electrical properties. If you are a music lover, you should have some concern about how the noise characteristics of a capacitor will affect the music signals passing through it.

4. Contrary to your "beliefs", there are other things which affect a capacitor's sound performance in addition to its rated value.

5. With regard to what the authors wanted to accomplish with the paper, they are quite clear (p. 2):

"This work presented in this paper has focused on the use of metalized film capacitors in loudspeaker crossover applications and one of the main findings has been that the capacitors used in crossover applications exhibit varying degrees of mechanical resonance. Duncan and Dodds in [6] have shown that the resultant acoustic emissions from some of the capacitors under ac current conditions have been found to be significant, and detrimental to the overall reproduced sound quality."

"...discussions with loudspeaker manufacturers, and anecdotal evidence from within the industry suggested that mechanical vibration and resonance phenomena in crossover capacitors has a detrimental effect on the quality of the reproduced sound. This has been confirmed by the authors in a series of detailed subjective listening tests, the results of which are presented in [6]."

The conclusion section states (p. 9)

"These results show a clear resonant peak for each of the capacitors in the upper audio frequency band between 14kHz and 22kHz indicative of a mechanical resonance at that frequency."

Obviously, the authors of the paper are primarily concerned with the detrimental effects of capacitor mechanical vibration on SOUND QUALITY and not whether there is a link between mechanical vibration and the electrical properties of the capacitor.

I think it is rather ironic that a paper that you offered (Duncan et al 2009) to supposedly debunk audiophile views of audible differences in capacitors actually strongly supports it.:biggrin:

Question: You appear to believe that Duncan et al 2008, "Audio capacitors. Myth or reality?", also debunks the audiophile assertion that there are audible differences in capacitors. Is that your position?

Do tell!!

megasat16

Eh....Capacitors Sucks!

So, how about helping the OP to recap his Monitor 5 & 7?

Joe08867

I think the OP ran for cover when he heard all the talk about trolls and mysticism......

He probably thinks we practice the dark arts.

DarqueKnight

megasat16 wrote: »

Eh....Capacitors Sucks!

I agree. Capacitors do suck up electrical charges.

megasat16 wrote: »

So, how about helping the OP to recap his Monitor 5 & 7?

We are. The discussion of capacitor performance is pertinent to selecting an appropriate upgrade capacitor.

Joe08867 wrote: »

I think the OP ran for cover when he heard all the talk about trolls and mysticism......

He probably thinks we practice the dark arts.

Speaking of darque arts, Clarity Cap, a manufacturer of high end, high performance capacitors, offers the following technical report to bolster thier position concerning why you should invest in big, juicy, pricey audiophile grade kapaciters:

Mechanical Resonance as a Determinant of Audio Signal Capacitor Sound Quality

Now, the weekend is here once again and I will be caught up in some leisure activies. I don't know if I will be able to pop in to continue our discussion over the weekend. If not, I'll see you guys on Monday.

Don't y'all fight, now.

DON73

[

We are. The discussion of capacitor performance is pertinent to selecting an appropriate upgrade capacitor.



60+ posts and no more than 2 have been directed precisely at the OPs question. Just a pissing contest in which some posters do their best to insult and disrespect each other. The OP has 6 posts..........he probably won't be back. It's a little like third grade recess or when the teacher left the room. Some here need to grow up and act like adults.

FTGV

jcandy wrote: »

... why was the completely non-specific word "noise" used rather than "mechanical resonance" ...

The generic term "noise" had me thinking the reference was to some other mechanism than resonance.It's well known that capacitors can depending upon their construction ,be prone to vibrations and can even become microphonic.Thus the reason some hi end manufacturers go as far as to potting their xovers in epoxy.(I use generous amounts of hot glue or silicone.0
I'll ask again,if he tests for it what is Darqueknight's testing methodology for this specific performance aspect?

Now off to get a coffee and read Mr.Duncun's treatise on the subject.